Essay Sample on Frail Executives: Indicator of Bad Government, Threat to Security

Introduction

The main argument in Federalist 70 is how the frail executive is an indicator of a bad government and the essence of a single executive. The execution of government operations can be curtailed by the tyrants who are power-hunger who can never accept the truth. They fail to protect the community thus making is susceptible to foreign attacks. Feeble government is governed by a leader who failed at some point to administer the law as required. They are the ones who compromise the security of liberty and interrupt justice to all. The only thing that will change this narrative is an energetic executive that is focusing on the safety from a republican perspective. The energetic executive requires unit, safety, support, and competent leader. Safety entails due to responsibility and dependence on the people. The unit is susceptible to destruction when power is granted to the magistrate who possesses the same authority and dignity. They can use the powers and authority bestowed in them to compromise unity and disrupt governance.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

There is a need for strong executive leaders as required by the constitution. Nevertheless, the articles of confederation recommend a weak executive. It is vital to protect the society, provide a constant administration of the rule of law, property protection and application of justice and to ensure the security of liberty. A single executive is safe compared executive council because it will cause a conflict of interests and vary in public opinions. The council can weaken the executive authorities and respectability. It will be easy to monitor a single executive rather than the council of executives. Ambitions of two people will differ leading to subdue of duties and responsibilities and the dual presidency will experience weak feeble authority, dissension and the increasing factions that are conflicting. It is unprofessional to create the executive branches because they will intensify division. In a situation where immediate decisions are a necessity, arguments and conflicts will hinder the decision-making process.

The feeble executive also has people with conflicting interests, their opinions differ; thus, eliciting the dangers associated with animosity and personal emulation. These magistrates can assail the country's executive magistracy and impend the most crucial measure of governance. Consequently, they will end up dividing the community and lead it to violence and factions that are irreconcilable. Often, executive leaders can oppose good ideas because they did not have agency in planning it or they were not in good terms with the planers which will eventually compromise governance. Upon contrary to their sentiment, they will tend to oppose any ideas that are bound not in their honor. These are the kind of leaders who will compromise the great interests of society and sacrifice it to the vanity and the obstinacy of individuals.

The direction in which the country will head depends on the sobriety of the head of the state and the executives who help him in the execution of his duties. Undeniably, the feeble executive will contribute to the disruption of unity. One person's proceeding will be as a result of activities, decisions, dispatch, and the secrecy when dealing with government mothers. If these obligations are delegated to two people, leadership will lose meaning because as the number of energetic executive increases, the quality of good governance will diminish. Also, disruption of unit results from conferring the authority ostensibly in one person at the expense of others. The main idea here is to have strong executives who are committed to service delivery and unifying society. The drive for this kind of federalism is the votaries of the executive council.

However, the idea of pluralism in the executive should be rejected because when two or more people get involved in a common pursuit, different opinions will arise; thus, compromising public trust. The federalism argument is very critical when it comes to understanding the concepts of the presidency. Constitutional conception forms the basis for the presidency because it reflects the powers of the executive. The will of the society and the conception must be within the generous independent limits and self-directory. The executive powers are vested in the president and not the legislator. The conception of the presidency intends to settle any issues that arise from the national executive. If the presidency assails the executive magistracy of a nation that has a plurality of people, it will frustrate the important functions of the governance.

The common objection to executive plurality is the concealing of faults and destruction of the responsibilities which include censure and punishment. In the executive office held by the president, censure is more essential, especially with the elected president. The magistracy will often behave in a way that renders the presidency unworthy and consider it as untrustworthy. These actions will subject the executive head to punishment. This kind of critical usually comes from a weak executive that has failed to execute their duties. The conditions that led to misfortune in the country's leadership are often complicated because the agency of different actors differs in one way or the other. Sometimes there is mismanagement but due to different agencies, it is difficult to overrule the decisions of the executive council.

The divide in the council's opinions makes it impossible for the presidency to make resolutions. The outrageous appointment of the executive council is not the founding conception of the presidency because when the appointed member abuses office, the community is the one that losses. These considerations serve as evidence that executive plurality deprives the community of the securities that they deserve through restrained public opinion. Also, it does not go hand-in-hand with the constitutional founding principles of the conception of the presidency. The issues surrounding the executive provides key concepts in understanding the founding conception of the presidency. However, in a state where the executive magistrates take personal responsibilities for the behaviors of the office bearers will ensure that the presidency does not go against the constitutional provisions. They ensure that the founding conception of the presidency does not serve at the hostage for national justice.

The concept of the executive has gained the state constitutions is obtained from the maxim of the republican's suspicion that considers power as the only safer way when it is handled by various executives rather than the presidency. Confirmation of executive power often stands out when there is one person who is in control of the other departments of the government rather than being watchful of the people. The duplication of the executive is not appropriate rather than being liberal. The single executive is appropriate during the legislative process because it helps to protect the society against coercion by the executive. The legislature makes laws ad the executive come in to ensure that execution of these laws is appropriate. In the event of a conflict, the community depends on the strong presidency but division in the executive will destroy the security of a nation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Federalist 70 recommends a single form executive and those who advocate for a council of executives acknowledge that it will be large and unmanageable. The conception of the presidency mainly focusses on maintaining the security of the nation through the proper application of laws. The legislature has the obligation of formulating policies that requires a single executive to implement them and protect the interests of the minority.