outlines of a new office. A single executive, appointed by Congress, would serve a seven-year term but be ineligible for reappointment. He would have the authority to negative a congressional bill, but two-thirds of each legislative branch could override his negative. Congress, which had appointed him, could also remove him for “mal-practice or neglect of duty.” His scant powers were loosely stipulated—“to carry into execution thenational laws” and “to appoint offices in cases not otherwise provided for”—but even so, delegates had created and defined the broad parameters for a “chief magistrate,” as they referred to the office.
But wait: Were these matters really settled?
Not according to George Mason, who had missed the critical vote on a single executive. The day following that decision, Mason announced he was not ready to abide by it, and his tirade against a single executive was at least as passionate as Edmund Randolph’s had been. Mason “never could agree to give up all the rights of the people to a single Magistrate.” An American chief executive, no less than the British monarch, would be tempted to use “bribery and influence” to augment his powers. The American version would be an even “more dangerous monarchy, an elective one.”
People out of doors feared this, and they were the ones with the final say. “Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy, the genius of the people is in favor of it, and the genius of the people must be consulted.” Further, the “genius of the people” would certainly reject one-man rule, thereby dooming the entire plan “not for a moment but forever.” Eventually, Mason predicted, his colleagues would realize the disastrous consequences of their decision. Then, so as not to offend the people, they would strip the unitary executive of all significant powers. Finally, seeing that they were undermining their goal of a stronger government, they would reverse their decision, “increase the number of the Executive,” and grant the office the powers it needed.
We have no record of how delegates received George Mason’s lecture, but we know they could not summarily dismiss it. Mason had all the key characteristics of convention delegates, but in the extreme. Land and slave rich, he was wealthier than most. Although all delegates were learned to a degree, Mason was recognized and respected as among the best read of the lot. He had been at the inner core of Virginia’s intellectual leaders for more than two decades. His neighbor George Washington had looked to him as a mentor during his politically formative years before the Revolution. With Washington, Mason had spearheaded the Virginia Nonimportation Resolves of 1769, and he had helped author the Fairfax Resolves of 1774. He had contributed to the Virginia Constitution of 1776, which opened with his trendsetting Declaration of Rights, a document that became a model for severalstate constitutions and the eventual Bill of Rights. Mason served only rarely in elective office, despite repeated badgering from numerous compatriots, but that only seemed to heighten his status as the ultimate political philosopher. William Pierce summed up his standing: “Mr. Mason is a Gentleman of remarkable strong powers, and possesses a clear and copious understanding. He is able and convincing in debate, steady and firm in his principles, and undoubtedly one of the best politicians in America.” We can be sure that Mason’s vehement opposition to a single executive, although a minority view at that point, was duly recorded in the minds of his fellow delegates. 5
Immediately following Mason’s harangue, the venerable Dr. Franklin added some cautionary words of his own, more casually presented than Mason’s but no less effective. He started with a rambling tale of executive abuse, from the Netherlands this time, then came abruptly to the moral. “The first man put at the helm will be
But wait: Were these matters really settled?
Not according to George Mason, who had missed the critical vote on a single executive. The day following that decision, Mason announced he was not ready to abide by it, and his tirade against a single executive was at least as passionate as Edmund Randolph’s had been. Mason “never could agree to give up all the rights of the people to a single Magistrate.” An American chief executive, no less than the British monarch, would be tempted to use “bribery and influence” to augment his powers. The American version would be an even “more dangerous monarchy, an elective one.”
People out of doors feared this, and they were the ones with the final say. “Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy, the genius of the people is in favor of it, and the genius of the people must be consulted.” Further, the “genius of the people” would certainly reject one-man rule, thereby dooming the entire plan “not for a moment but forever.” Eventually, Mason predicted, his colleagues would realize the disastrous consequences of their decision. Then, so as not to offend the people, they would strip the unitary executive of all significant powers. Finally, seeing that they were undermining their goal of a stronger government, they would reverse their decision, “increase the number of the Executive,” and grant the office the powers it needed.
We have no record of how delegates received George Mason’s lecture, but we know they could not summarily dismiss it. Mason had all the key characteristics of convention delegates, but in the extreme. Land and slave rich, he was wealthier than most. Although all delegates were learned to a degree, Mason was recognized and respected as among the best read of the lot. He had been at the inner core of Virginia’s intellectual leaders for more than two decades. His neighbor George Washington had looked to him as a mentor during his politically formative years before the Revolution. With Washington, Mason had spearheaded the Virginia Nonimportation Resolves of 1769, and he had helped author the Fairfax Resolves of 1774. He had contributed to the Virginia Constitution of 1776, which opened with his trendsetting Declaration of Rights, a document that became a model for severalstate constitutions and the eventual Bill of Rights. Mason served only rarely in elective office, despite repeated badgering from numerous compatriots, but that only seemed to heighten his status as the ultimate political philosopher. William Pierce summed up his standing: “Mr. Mason is a Gentleman of remarkable strong powers, and possesses a clear and copious understanding. He is able and convincing in debate, steady and firm in his principles, and undoubtedly one of the best politicians in America.” We can be sure that Mason’s vehement opposition to a single executive, although a minority view at that point, was duly recorded in the minds of his fellow delegates. 5
Immediately following Mason’s harangue, the venerable Dr. Franklin added some cautionary words of his own, more casually presented than Mason’s but no less effective. He started with a rambling tale of executive abuse, from the Netherlands this time, then came abruptly to the moral. “The first man put at the helm will be
Similar Books
