[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was originally published on March 15, 1788, in The New York Packet under the pseudonym Publius as part of The Federalist Papers and as the fourth in Hamilton's series of eleven essays discussing executive power.

[1][13] Alexander Hamilton, along with many other Framers, believed the solution to this and problems of federal law enforcement could be solved with a strong general government.

[1][14][15] Alexander Hamilton greatly admired the British monarchy, and sought to create a similarly strong unitary executive in the United States.

[20] Hamilton was also inspired by William Blackstone and John Locke, who favored an executive who would act on his own prerogative while maintaining respect for constitutional obligations.

[4][5][11][29][30][31][32] According to Hamilton, a unitary executive is best-suited to promoting accountability in government because it is easier to point blame at one person than to distinguish fault among members of a group.

[2][5][6] Hamilton bolsters his argument by claiming that misconduct and disagreements among members of the council of Rome contributed to the Roman Empire's decline.

70, Alexander Hamilton writes: Those politicians and statesmen who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justice of their views, have declared in favor of a single Executive... .They have with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification (of the former) and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand...[2]According to Hamilton, unity contributes to energy by permitting necessary "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch" in the executive branch.

[2][6][7] Hamiltonian support can be defined as a presidential salary, which insulates government officials from corruption by attracting capable, honest men to office.

[2][5][41] According to Hamilton, public service does not provide men with fame or glory, so ample pay is necessary to attract talented politicians.

51, which he contends will permit the president to execute the laws and act as commander in-chief without fear of legislative encroachment on his powers.

"[39][44][45][46] Conversely, others read Article II of the United States Constitution as an "empty grant" that does not explicitly give the President the power to execute the laws.

[28][50][51] Both Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania had suggested advisory councils that would serve as a support rather than a check on the executive.

[28] Edmund Randolph, who had presented the Virginia Plan, was the most outspoken opponent of the unitary executive, arguing that it would be unpopular with the people and could easily become monarchical.

[28][51] He warned against using the British government as a model for the Constitution, noting that energy, dispatch, and responsibility could be found in three men drawn from three different regions of the country just as well as in one.

[54] In this manuscript, originally written on the back of an early draft of the Constitution, Mason warned that the lack of a council would make for an unadvised president, who would act within the interests of friends, rather than the people at large:[54] The President of the United States has no Constitutional Council, a thing unknown in any safe and regular government.

He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites...[54]Richard Henry Lee, another prominent Anti-Federalist, exchanged letters with Mason, in which he too expressed concern about the unitary executive, supporting the constitutional addition of a privy council.

[57] In this address, written most likely by Samuel Bryan and signed by twenty-one members of the minority, the lack of an executive council is enumerated as the twelfth of fourteen reasons for dissent: 12.

That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers be kept separate; and to this end that a constitutional council be appointed, to advise and assist the president, who shall be responsible for the advice they give, hereby the senators would be relieved from almost constant attendance; and also that the judges be made completely independent.

[57]Though he was in England at the time of the Anti-Federalist Papers, Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet Common Sense served as motivation for independence from British rule during the American Revolution, also opposed the unitary executive.

[2] Hamilton employs historical examples and the rhetoric of common sense to warn the American people of the weaknesses of a plural executive structure.

[37] Some academics have noted that Hamilton viewed the British monarchy as a superior system of government and potential model for its consent for appointments and treaties.

[62] In this regard, members of the post 9/11 United States Department of Justice have argued that foreign policy is most effectively conducted with a single hand, meaning that Congress should defer to the president's authority.

[5] Some scholars contend that President Bush's foreign policy decisions exceeded his presidential powers granted by the Constitution.

70, must act within the limits imposed by other provisions of the United States Constitution[5][66][67][68] and that the concept of the unitary executive does not allow the president to work outside laws passed by Congress, even when they conflict with national security interests.

[63][68] These critics argue that President Bush could have asked Congress to amend existing law or retroactively obtain warrants for surveillance and that he violated the constitution when he did not.

[78][79] For example, in his 1952 dissenting opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, chief justice Fred M. Vinson wrote: This comprehensive grant of the executive power to a single person was bestowed soon after the country had thrown the yoke of monarchy… Hamilton added: 'Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government.

70's arguments about energy in the executive to argue that the president should be allowed to seize private property in a time of national crisis.

70 to make the case that the president should have the power to suspend Habeas Corpus for American citizens in order to fight the war on terror.

[83] In its 1997 opinion in Clinton v. Jones, the court weighed whether or not a sitting president could delay addressing civil litigation until the end of his or her term.

[86] Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated: The Constitution that makes the President accountable to the people for executing the laws also gives him the power to do so.