Historians sometimes talk about the constitutional convention of 1787 as “the miracle of Philadelphia.” Why? This is Part FOUR of the answer.
While delegates were able to craft an electoral college as a compromise over how to elect the president, significant disagreements remained over the precise outlines of the presidency and the executive branch it would preside over. Some states had “councils of revision” composed of their governor and a committee, and these councils could veto by majority vote laws passed by their legislatures. Should the Senate or some other committee serve this function in the new American government? How long should the president serve?
Madison’s Virginia Plan proposed an executive of unknown number to serve for a single term. This executive would join with some number of federal judges to form a national council of revision with power to veto any federal or state law, subject to any veto being overturned by two-thirds of Congress. Anti-federalists soon whittled away at these ideas, while federalists like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton ensured that the chief executive would be one person. The convention decided that person, the president, would, without any council of revision, have sole veto power, but only over laws passed by the national Congress.
Most delegates still feared that after George Washington, whom all assumed would be the first American president, later presidents might abuse the power vested in them by the new constitution. As a result, the term of office was reduced from an initial single term of seven years to a shorter term of four years, with no limit on the possibility of being re-elected. Also, delegates were careful to provide a mechanism for removing a president who was corrupt or incompetent. The constitution would provide that should he commit what delegates called a “high crime or misdemeanor,” he could be impeached by the House and removed by two-thirds vote of the Senate.
“History of Our Freedoms” is produced by KEDT-FM in Corpus Christi. Dr. Bill Chriss is a historian and legal scholar. For more on history and the constitution, check out his blog at DrBillChriss.substack.com.
