Talk:Federalist No. 74

Copy of Draft:Federalist No. 74
In Federalist #74, titled “The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive,” Alexander Hamilton explains and defends the federalist's, the president’s constitutional powers to command the United States military, and pardon all crimes short of treason, refuting common anti-federalist claims about the presidency by arguing for its necessity.

Views from the Anti-Federalists
The anti-federalists were against the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, believing that the national government could easily become tyrannical. They were particularly concerned by the power of the President, believing he could easily become a tyrant, and had special problems with the pardoning power. From their viewpoint, not only could the president command the armed forces, potentially leading to tyranny, but he could also pardon anyone for almost any reason, allowing him to undermine the justice system and take more power for himself.

In order to keep a good eye on the citizens of the United States, the Anti-Federalists believed that the government and the citizens should be kept close. Herbert J. Storing says “The Anti-Federalists argued for a polity in which the citizens stands in close relation to the state”(pg 1). The government would always be in the citizen’s life so that the government knew what was happening at all times. The country should be run strictly by the government and state to ensure that the country would be able to raise the money needed to pay off the debts for the Revolutionary War. The Federalists, however had other plans. They wanted to involve the citizens to help make decisions for their country. The more people that are living in a society but are not part of the government and give ideas, the better a government can understand its people. They believed that a country run by just the government would fall apart because they would have no idea about what the citizens would be thinking. You can’t run a country without thinking about what your citizens want. The main focus of the Anti-Federalists was to make sure the citizens were obeying their laws and not causing trouble. This is where there idea of bringing citizens and the government closer together. It would allow the government to monitor and know what everyone is up to.

With the power to pardon anyone from any crime except for treasons, solutions can be discovered to prevent as much bloodshed as possible. The president can pardon a leader of a rebel force so that the opposing forces can come to a truce.The opposing party did not see it this way. The Anti-Federalists saw it as a way for the president to do as he pleased and excuse anyone for their crimes. As a strategy of war, pardoning a leader of an enemy group would allow the two sides to work out their problems peacefully to avoid the bloodshed.

Anti-Federalists were against the Constitution because it did not suit their beliefs about the affect the Constitution would have on the country. They thought it would do more harm than good by giving the people more rights in the society by letting them become more involved in government business. Another big factor that led to the Anti-Federalists dislike of the Constitution was the amount of power the president had. From the anti federalists point of view, not only could he be commander and chief and control the United States armed forces, but he could also pardon who he thought didn’t deserve to serve a punishment. He could misuse this power and let anyone he wanted to be excused of his punishment. Pardoning a criminal could create a chance of peace.

Alexander Hamilton attempts to address the anti-federalist criticism by arguing that the president is necessary and that his military and pardoning powers, properly understood, do not allow tyranny but are entirely needed for the Union to function and defend itself against its enemies. He explains that “The President of the United States is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States”; in other words, the president has full control of the United States military, but only when the military is called into action. The president cannot declare war by himself; he must justify it through congress, so Hamilton is saying that after congress approves the use of the military then the president has full control. Hamilton justifies the decision to have the president the sole commander of the military by stating, “Of all the cares or concerns of the government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand” (74). Hamilton believes that out of all the roles of the government, war demands the power of only a single person. The reasoning behind this is that in a situation such as war there must be one man with the final word on what goes. Without that it could get messy with different people’s opinions and having to vote on what they think the military should do, there is no time for that in war.Therefore, Hamilton implies, the president’s control of the military is both required for successful defense of the Union and non-threatening to freedom because Congress can check and balance his war-making powers.

Presidents role as Commander-In-Chief
In Article 74 of the Federalist papers Hamilton states that “The President of the United States is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States” (74). What Hamilton is saying here is that the president has full control of the US military but only when the military is called into action. The president cannot declare war by himself, he must justify it through congress, so Hamilton is saying that after congress approves the use of the military then the president has full control. Hamilton justifies the decision to have the president the sole commander of the military by stating, “Of all the cares or concerns of the government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand” (74). Hamilton believes that out of all the roles of the government, war demands the power of only a single person. The reasoning behind this is that in a situation such as war there must be one man with the final word on what goes. Without that it could get messy with different people’s opinions and having to vote on what they think the military should do, there is no time for that in war.

The president’s role as commander-in-chief can also expand to his use of military force for political purposes. In Charles Ostrom and Brian Job’s article The President and the Political Use of Force, it states that with the military in mind, “Components of it can be directed by the president to undertake a broad spectrum of foreign policy activities, ranging from the transporting of military equipment and advisors, to ‘showing the flag’ with minor maneuvers, to engaging in military combat with an opponent” (Ostrom and Job 541). This is saying that the military does not only have to be used for combat, the president can use them to transport important advisors and as a show of force to intimidate enemies. In an article written by Blechman and Kaplan they define political use of force as “	physical actions ... taken by one or more components of the uniformed armed military services as part of a deliberate attempt by the national authorities to influence or be prepared to influence, specific behavior of individuals in another nation without engaging in a continuing contest of violence” (12). This is stating that the military can be used to influence another nation into doing what our government wants without the military having to engage in battle, and according to Ostrom and Job’s article they state that, “Between the years 1946 and 1976, the U.S. deployed military units abroad for political purposes 226 times” (542). This is an extremely high number, this shows that the U.S. relies on the military heavily for political use, most likely because it is one of our best assets. The president has the power to move military troops anywhere in the world as he see’s fit. If he wants to have a particularly strong presence in a specific country to show a strong force because he feels a potential threat then he has the authority to do so. Overall the President has full control over all the branches of the U.S. Military and he has the authority to do with them as he pleases with limited control from congress. X

President's Pardoning Power
After establishing the need for the president to control the United States military forces, Hamilton explains the president’s pardoning power, offering a defense against the criticism that it will lead to corruption. Historically, pardons dated back to the Middle Ages and before, and kings would grant royal pardons. The president of the United States’ pardoning power is limited by the constitution, but is still relatively large. [Explain Hamilton’s rationale for this]

In the two centuries since the publication of Federalist 74, the president’s military leadership and pardoning powers have been exercised many times.   

Federalist Paper 74 is “The command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive”. The President of the United States of America has the ability to grant a pardon without the approval of Congress and cannot be reviewed, blocked, or overturned, unlike most executive powers. The first American pardon was issued in 1795 during The Whiskey Rebellion to quell armed forces. However, pardons date back to the medieval days and even before that, as the kings would grant pardons. The difference between kings and presidents is that presidents don’t believe they are above the law and kings did. This federalist paper is in favor of limiting the power of the President. The limitation of the presidential pardon has been broken into 3 parts; pardoning used for financial gain and power, reasons for pardoning must be justified, and reform for presidential pardoning. After breaking it down into these three parts, it explains many questions about the pardoning system, but also raises a few debates. Nonetheless, the act of pardoning by the President will always be intriguing and inevitable.

Pardoning used for financial gain and power has been under speculation. People tend to believe that pardons are sometimes given to cover up criminal cases or corruption.

The presidential pardon was originally controversial; George Mason once said, “in democracies...this power of pardon can never subsist”. In Federalist 74, however, Hamilton made the case for the presidential pardon, arguing “in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall. The dilatory process of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, for the purpose of obtaining its sanction to the measure, would frequently be the occasion of letting slip the golden opportunity. The loss of a week, a day, an hour, may sometimes be fatal”(Federalist Paper 74). Hamilton thought that at the right moment, presidential pardons could be extremely useful and that waiting to grant one, could ruin the possible opportunity to save lives. In practice the first presidential pardons were issued several years after the ratification, when Washington pardoned pennsylvania farmers during the Whiskey Rebellion to minimize bloodshed.

Another aspect that attracts attention about presidential pardoning is the reasoning. Reasons for presidential pardoning must be justified. Presidential pardoning is supposed to be used in cases where justice isn’t derived from a prison sentence. Pardons are supposed to be based on good intentions, behavior, etc. However, the President must draw his own conclusions. It is not up to the people, but rather the person who the people elected to make that decision. The decision a President makes about whether or not to give a pardon sets a precedent for the cases that follow. Future presidents can base whether or not to grant a pardon by looking at what previous presidents have done. Ironically, the reasoning for why a pardon is given usually never makes it to the public. They are left in the dark and the reasoning remains only with the President.

As a result of the information mentioned above, there is a lot of controversy over how to fix these problems. To reiterate, people think some pardons have been given as a reward for financial contribution or covering up mistakes. As well as the reasoning behind the authorization of a pardon never being announced. Pardons are always scrutinized whether it is the right decision or not, there will always be people asking questions. It’s unclear what reforms to make and there is sufficient evidence that suggests no reform be made at all. It is really up to the President to make the right choice and there is no way you can fix the pardoning situation if complications keep arising, such as not knowing the truth behind the situation.