Before ascending to power as the U.S. president, Thomas Jefferson was a leading opponent of massive executive power. This staunch ideology essentially changed as soon as he stepped into the White House. Rather than exercising his opposing views on the power of Federal government, Jefferson articulated the doctrine of enhancing executive power all through his tenure as a public figure. His attempts of revising the Virginia Constitution and his gubernatorial executive power depicts a consistent understanding of a close relationship between law and right. 1 Being a law-giver, he avoided extensive authoritative grants to the executive as he aspired to make it less dependent on legislative power. He confronted events whereby the prevailing law had limited provisions for enhancing necessary executive actions, but rather resisted an interpretation of the law that gathers for desperate times. As an eventual critic of Confederation Articles and a Congress delegate, Jefferson became an early executive advocate independent of the legislature. 2 Even though this was a point in time when his overall understanding and views on the power and roles of the executive were partially developed, he advocated for a remarkably stronger executive.
The proposal and approval of American Constitution gave Jefferson a greater opportunity for completing his understanding of the tenets of executive power. Though he had interfered with the electoral laws and guidelines during his tenure in office, they later arrived at a consensus with Madison with regards to the need for constitutional amendment. 3 The amendment sought clarity from the perspective of combining declaration of key principles and presidential selection to ensure the executive energy is compatible with the agreement. Therefore, his advocacy for enhancing the bill of rights was one of the main steps towards accomplishing his long-standing objectives. 4 In this case, he subsequently pushed for a two-term presidential limit. The main essence was to enhance regular democratic change. This meant that an extensively elected president had a greater democratic potential.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
During his tenure as an opposition leader, Jefferson left a clear path for a democratic executive. He later praised the advantages associated with a common executive by the time he was appointed as the U.S. Secretary of State. 5 In addition, he encouraged other reformers outside the United States to drop their constitutional provisions on the executive council. He also went an extra mile of enhancing democracy within the executive unit. It is an endeavor that began when he responded to residents of Albemarle. It is something that is traceable all through his partaking with Madison in Pacificus and Helvidius exchange, as well as his progressive ambivalence regarding the prominence of Washington. 6 During his vice presidency, Jefferson used his greater influence to enhance his opposition to the Federalist president. He presumably observed the existence of two constitutional views regarding those who took it as an ‘energetic republic,' and those who considered it as an an‘elective monarchy.´ 7 All these were taken as the turning points for free and fair elections.
The best chance for Jefferson to leave his inscription on the meaning and significance of executive dynamism came during his presidential tenure. It was a moment when he surprisingly tried to empower the executive administration through the act of linking it to the public opinion. In the process of doing so, he defended the removal power of the president the moment it may have disappeared. 8 Furthermore, he subsequently transformed the power of appointment by taking into account the public confidence. The main essence of doing so was to empower the Federal government. Similarly, utilization of his privilege as a president made it easier for him to modify the aspect of executive power by making it more popular and energetic.
Bibliography
Bailey, Jeremy David. "Executive prerogative and the “good officer” in Thomas Jefferson's letter to John B. Colvin." Presidential Studies Quarterly 34, no. 4 (2004): 732-754.
Bailey, Jeremy D. Thomas Jefferson, and Executive Power . Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Casper, Gerhard. "Executive-Congressional Separation of Power During the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson." Stanford Law Review (1995): 473-497.
Yoo, John. Crisis and Command: The History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush. Kaplan Pub., 2009.
1 Yoo, John. Crisis and Command: The History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush. Kaplan Pub., 2009.
2 Bailey, Jeremy D. Thomas Jefferson, and Executive Power . Cambridge University Press, 2007.
3 Casper, Gerhard. "Executive-Congressional Separation of Power During the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson." Stanford Law Review (1995): 473-497.
4 Yoo, John. Crisis and Command: The History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush. Kaplan Pub., 2009.
5 Yoo, John. Crisis and Command: The History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush. Kaplan Pub., 2009.
6 Bailey, Jeremy D. Thomas Jefferson, and Executive Power . Cambridge University Press, 2007.
7 Casper, Gerhard. "Executive-Congressional Separation of Power During the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson." Stanford Law Review (1995): 473-497.
8 Bailey, Jeremy David. "Executive prerogative and the “good officer” in Thomas Jefferson's letter to John B. Colvin." Presidential Studies Quarterly 34, no. 4 (2004): 732-754.
