Sparks Commentary: What's the difference between the presidency and the prior British monarchy?

“The supreme executive power of these kingdoms is vested by our laws in a single person, the king or queen : for it matters not to which sex the crown descends ; but the person entitled to it, whether male or female, is immediately invested with all the ensigns, rights, and prerogatives of sovereign power ; as is declared by statute 1 Mar. st. 3. c. 1.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 3

Americans discarded monarchy during their Revolution

In prior times, British laws vested the “supreme executive power” of the kingdoms into a “single person, the king or queen.” (Source: Blackstone's “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 3) The constitutional monarchy of Britain now has very little power today; but then, it was a force to be reckoned with. Blackstone further wrote that “With us therefore in England this supreme power is divided into two branches; the one legislative, to wit, the parliament, consisting of king, lords, and commons; the other executive, consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Thus, the king was technically considered a part of the parliament with the “lords and commons”; although these two houses of Parliament did have a few checks on him in return. (All quotations from Blackstone in this post are from the “Commentaries,” so I will not note this every time.) As Blackstone wrote, the executive branch was “consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 2) When America was created, one of its most radical departures from British tradition was the total discarding of any form of monarchy. Monarchy was incredibly unpopular in the thirteen states at this time. Thomas Paine expressed this attitude well when he said: “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” (Source: “Common Sense,” Chapter III) Thus, America had a president instead; declaring in its Constitution that “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years ... ” (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1)

The White House

A monarch is hereditary, while the president is elected …

The most significant difference between the kings and the presidents may be that the office of a king is hereditary, while the office of a president is elected. Kings usually hold their office for life, while the president usually holds office only for “four years” at a time (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution). The election procedures were spelled out explicitly in the original Constitution; and then modified by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804. (See this post for details.) Blackstone noted that the crown “is in general hereditary, or descendible to the next heir, on the death or demise of the last proprietor. All regal governments must be either hereditary or elective,” he said, and as “I believe there is no instance wherein the crown of England has ever been asserted to be elective, except by the regicides at the infamous and unparalleled trial of king Charles I, it must of consequence be hereditary.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 3) Blackstone was thus opposed to the idea of killing a king (as happened to Charles I, whom he mentioned), even though this last resort was sometimes the only way to keep kings in line when other things failed. By contrast, the United States Constitution said that “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” (Source: Article 2, Section 4) The impeachment procedures are spelled out elsewhere (see this post for details), and I will not go into them here. Suffice it to say here that this threat of removal could keep presidents in line, and that it was necessary to have it there. (The true last resort, it would seem to me, is still violent revolution; but one truly hopes that this last resort will never again have to be used. The only time it did have to be used in this country, in my opinion, was during the American Revolution.)

Beheading of King Charles I, 1649 (contemporary German print)

Blackstone defended hereditary monarchy, as ensuring a stable “succession”

Blackstone’s primary reason for defending a hereditary monarchy was that it ensured a stable succession, without violence and civil war. For example, he said that “Where the magistrate, upon every succession, is elected by the people, and may by the express provision of the laws be deposed (if not punished) by his subjects, this may [appear] like the perfection of liberty, and look well enough when delineated on paper; but in practice will be ever productive of tumult, contention, and anarchy.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 3) This belief may have been part of the reason that Blackstone disapproved of the American Revolution. However, it turned out that the election of a president was just as stable as any hereditary succession. For example, the original Constitution said that “In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve upon the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President be elected.” (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5) This was partially changed by constitutional amendments, as I describe in another post. This turned out to be fairly stable (possibly even more stable), as I mentioned earlier, and the amendments to it were also quite stable. But in fairness to Blackstone, he could not foresee the things that we now know by hindsight; and your typical hereditary succession was at least better than a more ambiguous succession (like the kind that had caused the Wars of the Roses of the fifteenth century).

Sir William Blackstone

Royal councils chosen by king only, while president's Cabinet must go through Congress

As far as the king's royal councils went, Blackstone noted that “The dissolution of the privy council depends upon the king's pleasure; and he may, whenever he thinks proper, discharge any particular member, or the whole of it, and appoint another.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 5) Thus, they were completely dependent upon the king for their jobs. By contrast, the president's Cabinet had to be approved by the Senate. Specifically, the Constitution said that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” (Source: Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2) Thus, the president's choice of Cabinet officials depends somewhat upon the input of the Congress (and particularly the Senate). Blackstone also noted that the king's royal councils had to swear an oath of allegiance to him personally, and not to the people. (See the footnote for the full content of this oath.) By contrast, the members of the President's cabinet had to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, and not to the president. As the Constitution itself put it, “all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution” (Source: Article 6, Section 3). Thus, the Constitution departed here from its predecessor.

Sir William Blackstone

Conclusion: The prior British monarchy was more powerful than the presidency

It thus seems quite clear that the British monarchy of that time had more power than the “proposed presidency.” But during the ratification debates in this country, many Americans actually feared that the opposite might be true. For example, an anonymous letter from that time said that the president, “though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs” (Source: “Tamony” letter). Claims like this were taken seriously at this time, and the defenders of the Constitution thus had to respond to them. Thus, Alexander Hamilton actually responded to them in the Federalist Papers; and quoted from Blackstone's “Commentaries” to debunk this claim. (See our next post in this series for more details of this response.)

Statue of Sir William Blackstone

Text of the oath taken by the royal councils

I mentioned earlier how Blackstone observed that the king's royal councils had to swear an oath of allegiance to him personally, and not to the people. Here is Blackstone's description of the content of this oath:

“The duty of a privy counsellor appears from the oath of offices, which consists of seven articles: 1. To advise the king according to the best of his cunning and discretion. 2. To advise for the king's honour and good of the public, without partiality through affection, love, meed, doubt, or dread. 3. To keep the king's counsel secret. 4. To avoid corruption. 5. To help and strengthen the execution of what shall be there resolved. 6. To withstand all persons who would attempt the contrary. And, lastly, in general, 7. To observe, keep, and do all that a good and true counsellor ought to do to his sovereign lord.”

(Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 5)

If you liked this post, you might also like:

How did the Founding Fathers use Blackstone's writings about the monarchy?

Hamilton quoted from Blackstone when discussing the Habeas Corpus Act

Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights

The British Parliament was the main model for the United States Congress

5 surprising ways that the Congress was modeled on the British Parliament

Part of a series about

Sir William Blackstone

An overview of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”

The primary function of government is to protect our most basic rights
Hamilton quoted from Blackstone when discussing the Habeas Corpus Act

Wikipedia has some bad information about William Blackstone

Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights