Alexander Hamilton’s Impact on the Founding of the U.S. Executive Branch
“The disuse of that power for a considerable time past, does not affect the reality of its existence” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 69
The accountability mechanisms set into motion in the executive branch include provisions to preclude tyrannic overreach from the president. The Founding Fathers formed a system of checks and balances to preclude the centralization of power. Moreover, the Framers gave distinct roles for each branch of government. This novel three-headed Leviathan ensured that citizens would be governed by a reliable government; under the condition that it remained obedient to its electors, and the natural order intended by God.
Specifically, Founding Father and lawyer Alexander Hamilton (1755/57–1804) produced the blueprint for a strong executive, almost exclusively writing the contents of Article II in its entirety within his Federalist No. 69. Depicting this with greater organization, the U.S. Constitution’s Article II enumerates Hamilton’s executive; including its power, jurisdiction, expectations, obligations, and removal of the president.
While Alexander Hamilton “favored an elected president who would be a virtual monarch with lifetime tenure and the title of ‘His Excellency,’’’ (Pfiffner, J., Ch. 1–1); he later compromised to its scope and capacity during the Constitutional Convention. Hamilton ultimately signed the Constitution, whereby his contributions remain; both in the elected executive’s power, and in his compromise to its federal limitations.
Alexander Hamilton attended the Trinity Church in Manhattan, an Episcopalian Church where he is buried outside. Having personally visited his grave on multiple occasions, it’s attested that Hamilton was well-respected in the Church, and active member of the Christian community. Trinity Church has Hamilton’s relatives and many other prominent historic legal figures, giving evidence that Alexander Hamilton’s adherence to Christian doctrine greatly affected his reputation within the local New York City community. While Hamilton did not explicitly name Christ in his formation of the executive, he based every component on his Biblical worldview. He was an investor in the church, and handled Trinity Church’s legal needs, and had some of his own children baptized there.
Centuries later, Hamilton’s political legacy lives on throughout the New York City church—and nationally, in Article II of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Constitution’s Article II is divided into four distinct sections, describing the role of the president: Section 1, function; Section 2, powers; Section 3, duties; and Section 4, removal of the executive.
Article II, Section 1: Function
Clause 1
The Constitution’s Article II Section 1 begins with the Executive Vesting Clause whereby denoting the power of the executive, its exclusive powers, concurrent authorities, and limitations. The executive vesting clause reads that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1.).
The Founding Fathers knew the Biblical parable that “[n]o one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other,” (Matthew 6:24a; NASB). Similarly, Alexander Hamilton “warned us that a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one,” (Kengor, P., p. 41). Thus, America’s Framers ensured that no ruler could claim some form of “divine endowment” under the guise of glory. Moreover, the Constitution gives the president the power to remove an official within the executive.
In Myers v. United States, (1926), the extent of executive power was challenged—resulting in the Supreme Court reaffirming the executive’s power of removal. The original definition of the U.S. Constitution’s executive power includes the power to remove executive officers. Chief Justice President William Taft “addressed the President’s removal power” holding that “the executive power includes the power to remove Executive Branch officers,” (LII). Chief Justice Taft reasoned that “the removal power was necessary for the President to fulfill his constitutional duty to enforce the laws,” (LII).
In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB), (2020), nearly a century later, the executive’s power was rechallenged—and, again, its originalist interpretation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts held that “[t]he resulting constitutional strategy is straightforward: divide power everywhere except for the Presidency, and render the President directly accountable to the people through regular elections,” (LII). Thus, the president remains exclusive in his power of removal. The president’s duty is to execute representative power contingent on the approval of the citizens that elected him.
God’s intention for government is the delegation of His Kingdom; its eternal order concurrent with national statutes of man and the collective morality of regional communities. American political theorist Alex Jones writes, “[t]he more power is given to the people, the more God’s will is accomplished. People who demand more freedom are working in God’s interest, because they trust themselves to hear God’s voice,” (Jones, A., p. 11). Founding Father Alexander Hamilton knew that the power of public accountability was a central component to one’s reputation—he died upholding his.
Clauses 6 and 7
Article II Section 1 clause 6’s succession clause originally “devolved” the duties of the president to the vice president, until Congress could elect a new line of succession. However, “[t]he ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967 superseded Article II, Section 1, Clause 6,” (LII). Now the line of succession is explicitly enumerated under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, whereby Section 1 reads, “[i]n case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President,” (U.S. Const. amend. XXV, § 1).
Article I Section I Clause 7 establishes the “Emoluments Clause and Presidential Compensation,” (LII). In this, the president is prevented from increasing wealth whilst in office. Alexander Hamilton noted this provision the Federalist No. 73, writing “[i]t is there provided, that ‘the president of the United States shall, at stated times, receive for his service a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them,’” (Hamilton, A., p. 380). Moreover, limits on the president’s compensation was “[m]odeled after similar provisions in state constitutions,” (LII).
Clause 8
Article I Section 1 Clause 8 describes the president’s inauguration, denoting the oath or affirmation that must be taken before entering office. Additionally it depicts the president’s commitment to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution of the United States. Daniel Dreisbach notes that “[t]he Constitution’s oath requirements found in article 1, section 3, clause 6; article 2, section 1, clause 8; article 6, clause 3; and amendment 4 entailed a profoundly religious act,” (Dreisbach, D., p. 46).
Article II, Section 2: Powers
Clause 1
The U.S. Constitution separates the power of war between Congress and the President. Article II, Section 2 establishes the president as commander in chief, reading “[t]he President shall 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.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1.). Conversely, the president’s ability to declare war is limited by Congress. To limit the executive power of the commander in chief, the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the exclusive power “[t]o declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” (U.S. Const. art I, §8). Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 69 that “The president is to be the ‘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,” (Hamilton, A., p. 356).
The Constitution grants the president the power of clemency—to grant pardons without contention. This power is limited in cases of impeachment, ensuring moral application is applied to every executive action.
Section 2 adds that the president, “may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1.).
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 69 that “He [the president] is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; to recommend to the consideration of congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” (Hamilton, A., p. 356).
Scripture states “[j]udge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven,” (Luke 6:37; ESV). Similarly, “[i]f you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins,” (Matthew 6:14-15; NLT). Therefore, the Founding Fathers implemented the power of the pardon, thereby comporting with the Biblical worldview of forgiveness.
Clause 2
Hamilton designated further presidential duties to include the power to make treaties with foreign nations. Treaties are Biblically supported throughout the Old Testament as a means of forming a binding covenant, (See Genesis 26:28–30, 31:43; Joshua 9:6, 15; Samuel 11:1; Kings 15:19; 2 Chronicles; Ezekiel 17:13; and Daniel 9:27). Further, the president can nominate and appoint federal workers. But these executive powers are not autonomous, and are limited by the approval of Congress and the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution.
Article II Section 2 reads, “[h]e shall have power [to make treaties] . . . provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and [nominate and appoint] . . . with the advice and consent of the Senate.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.).
Judicially, the executive is responsible for the federal appointment of judges. This includes “judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States,” but, again, limits this authority with the balance of Congress. Article II Section 2 notes that “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.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.).
The Old Testament describes the function of the executive; “[a]nd now let Pharaoh look for a discerning and wise man and put him in charge of the land of Egypt. Let Pharaoh appoint commissioners over the land to take a fifth of the harvest of Egypt during the seven years of abundance,” (Genesis 41:33-34; NIV).
Clause 3
The President also bears the obligation to keep Congress populated, and effective. Article II Section 2 endows the president the “power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 3.). In the Old Testament, the Prophet Ezekiel delegated responsibility to unfamiliar foreigners, proclaiming “I will appoint them to keep charge of the temple, to do all its service and all that is to be done in it,” (Ezekiel 44:14; ESV).
Article II, Section 3: Duties
The Constitution’s Article II, Section 3 was taken from Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No 69., writing that “both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States,” (Hamilton, A., p. 357). Hamilton’s words are found in Article II, Section 3, thereby naming the duties and obligations of the executive.
[h]e shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. (U.S. Const. art. II, § 3).
State of the Union
The Founding Fathers were clear in their depiction of righteous government, deriving its structure from John Locke. The Framers ensured government would remain reliant on public accountability for American posterity. Article II Section III confers the executive power to address Congress “from time to time” via state of the union, whereby he must meet face-to-face with the body of elected members from both houses of Congress, and settle matters of disagreement between them. In modern terms, this means that the president must speak annually before regionally elected members of Congress, with an obligation to represent the interests of the constituents within each district. Historically, the meaning of state of the union has changed throughout American history. Yet its importance remains central to the significance of national security, executive transparency, and regional representation.
American jurist James Brown Scott (1866–1943) wrote in the Los Angeles Journal in 1926, that the Constitution’s “threefold” construct was “carried over from colonial days with a dash of Montesquieu;” (Scott, J., p. 363). Scott declared America’s states and its union to be indestructible “creatures of law,” (Scott, J., pp. 366). Scott recorded that “[t]he continuous success of the American experiment bids fair to add to the small list of self-evident truths that the more instructed lawyers we have the fewer professional soldiers we shall need in any and every ‘government of laws and not of men,’” (Scott, B., p. 368). Now, nearly one century later, the American experiment wages on—with the same established model the Framers originally sought to institute. The Framers instituted a provision that would encourage deliberation while discouraging division and confrontation. Similarly, in foreign policy, a peaceful resolution is always far more desirable than a hot war conflict. Thus, a state of the union is designed to ensure that Congress remains apprised to the interests of the executive, both foreign and domestic.
Take Care Clause
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 3 establishes the Take Care Clause, granting the president righteously utilize the power of executive discretion. Its provision duties the American president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 3).
But the take care clause does not guarantee consensus of its interpretation, nor does it assure federal unanimity in its execution. The Congressional Research Service noted in 2014 that “[t]he Take Care Clause would appear to stand for two, at times diametrically opposed propositions—one imposing a ‘duty’ upon the President and the other viewing the Clause as a source of Presidential ‘power,’” (CRS).
Article II, Section 4: Removal
Impeachment Clause
Hamilton specifically noted exceptions for “cases of impeachment,” (Hamilton, A., p. 356). Originally, “[t]he American colonies adopted their own impeachment procedures that informed the Framers’ understanding of impeachment,” (LII). From Psalms, it’s clear that the position of the executive is not meant to be self-enriching; “[t]urn my heart toward your statutes and not toward selfish gain,” (Psalms 119:36, NIV). From Romans, the Apostle Paul warns that “no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law,” (Romans 3:20a, NIV). Although a president may operate within the bounds of his executive jurisdiction, he must place effort to become righteous in the eyes of the citizenry.
The executive is bound to the jurisdiction of his designated sphere of authority. Should any president overstep his position of power, and usurp the authority of another branch, Congress can opt for his timely removal. A president is obligated to act with moral conduct expected from his constituents. As it is written, “[s]alt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? (Luke 14:34; ESV).
The Founding Fathers recognized man’s fallen state, investing provisions that would both deter man from despotism, and obligate him to self-regulate man’s natural propensity to sin.
Article II, Section 4 grants the power of impeachment, thereby writing “[t]he 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.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 4). Any member of government operating under the power of the executive falls subject to this Constitutional provision.
Article I, Section 7: Presidential Veto Power
Clause 2
Similarly, the president’s powers are further enumerated in Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, whereby denoting the president’s veto power, that;
[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it, (U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2.).
Moreover, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 states that;
[i]f any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
The exception of Sundays was a direct acknowledgment to Genesis 2:1–3; Leviticus 13:5,6,27; Number 6:9, 7:48, 19:12; Deuteronomy 5:14; Judges 14:17,18; Samuel 12:18; and Kings 8:2, alongside many other instances depicting the Sabbath, or day of rest.
Similarly, Scripture decrees that “an overseer must be above reproach,” (1 Timothy 3:2; ESV); thus, the power of the presidential veto is concurrent with God. Or, as the prophet Isaiah put it more boldly, “Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins,” (Isaiah 58:1; ESV). Support for the presidential power to invoke an executive veto can be found in Psalms, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night,” (Psalms 1:1-2; ESV).
The New Testament reiterates the Biblical support for a presidential veto, “[s]o whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin,” (James 4:17; ESV). Or, as the Apostle Paul instructed the Churches in Galatia, “For freedom, Christ set us free. Stand firm, then, and don’t submit again to a yoke of slavery,” (Galatians 5:1; CSB). The Founders recognized the natural law of the veto, thereby incorporating it into the U.S. Constitution.
The Political Theory of the Executive
Alexander Hamilton did not advocate for a despotic executive, though he sought a powerful one. Hamilton wrote that whilst being exclusive in its authority; “the power of the president would be inferior to that of either the monarch, or the governor,” (Hamilton, A., p. 357). To achieve this, Hamilton ensured that he constructed an executive by Locke’s standards.
The Founding Fathers held a comprehensive understanding of political philosophy and its history, compounded by their own experiences and presupposed Biblical worldviews. Daniel Dreisbach notes that “[t]he Bible was the most accessible, authoritative, and venerated text in early colonial society,” (Dreisbach, D., p. 48). Moreover, the Bible was used as “a primary textbook for education, letters, law, and civil government,” (Dreisbach, D., p. 48).
The Founding Fathers applied their knowledge of political theory alongside their Biblical worldview to create a powerful, yet self-restrained chief executive. In constructing America’s “executive power,” the Founding Fathers took John Locke’s political theory of limited government.
But American philosopher Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. writes that “[i]t was John Locke who first conceived the executive in its modern form as ‘the executive power,’” (Mansfield, H., p. 244). John Locke wrote “[t]hat the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a Republic, is ‘an Empire of Laws, and not of men.’ That, as a Republic is the best of governments,” (Archives).
Mansfield notes that, “[o]n the one hand, Locke offered a doctrine of the separation of powers;” yet “[o]n the other hand, ‘executive power’ in Locke's Second Treatise is a thinly-veiled description of an institution in an actual regime, the English constitutional monarchy” (Mansfield, H., p. 245). Thus, the Founding Fathers revisited their fundamental roots, applying their Biblical worldview to Locke’s political theory.
Alexander Hamilton’s executive system remains recognizable centuries later. In 1926, law professor James Brown Scott summarized America’s Constitution, that “[w]e thus live under a ‘government of laws, not of men,’ in each State; and in this Union of States we likewise ‘live, move, and have our being’ in a ‘government of laws and not of men,’” (Scott, J., p. 365). From 1776, to 1926, to 2026, the exceptional truth remains; America is an empire of laws, not of men.
New Testament Influence
The Framers recognized man as fallen, and depravity as his natural state. The Old Testament provides man a pathway to salvation; as prophesied by Isaiah, “[f]or the LORD is our judge, our lawgiver, and our king. He will care for us and save us,” (Isaiah 33:22; NLT). No matter the circumstances, an adherence to God’s instruction has ensured the salvation of countless lives.
The New Testament reveals that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places,” (Ephesians 6:11-12; ESV). The Founding Fathers had experienced the human embodiment of spiritually demonic influence upon the autonomy of the ruling class. Therefore, they crafted a government that would preclude the invitation of evil, by limiting its ability to centralize authority.
Any executive president striving to tyrannize their constituency will be quickly faced with the wrath of Congress, backed by the Constitution—and the electors. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 the Apostle Paul proclaims the importance of caring for others through intercession and prayers of thanksgiving—even for kings in high positions.
Scripture assures “[p]ut on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes,” (Ephesians 6:11; NIV). Thus, personally adhering Biblical morals and striving to live like Jesus—especially in decision-making and the delegation of responsibility—ensures resilience against the incurrence of the inevitable storms, (See Matthew 7:24–27).
The Founding Fathers built a government from man’s presupposed fallen state. The Framers established a trinity of government representative of the Father (the impartial judiciary), Jesus (the charismatic executive), and His Holy Spirt (a congress of representation)—all three are one; a union of God’s simultaneous Supernatural form. The Framers sought to align their understanding of political theory with the Lord’s natural eternal law, to ensure its longevity and resilience; as “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void,” (Luke 16:17; ESV).
The Founders believed that monarchal rulers, like England’s King, had fallen away from God. The Apostle Paul scribed that “[t]he authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good,” Romans 13:4a (NLT). Any nation’s top official must defer his authority unto God, in order for his position of leadership to be sound. Thus, “the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves,” (Romans 13:2; CSB).
Elected federal officials and appointed members of their administration, are subject to God’s decree of obedience under established authority. It is by a conscious obedience to the Lord that the ruling class can confer its authority over its citizens; forming a jurisdiction of consensus to for all citizens to unanimously abide—including the executive. The president is bound to the same natural moral laws as his citizens; lest they devolve to subjects.
Lastly, it is by the impartial benevolent nature of government, supporting God’s order that taxation can play an important role in government; and is Biblically supported. Rulers are to act as servants of God—not autonomous tyrants. The Apostle Paul reminds us that “[f]or because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing,” Romans 13:6 (NASB). But the modern executive must consciously strive to preserve Alexander Hamilton’s establishment of the executive, if he is to preserve America.
Conclusion
In sum, the modern executive’s power is tethered to its accountability to God. This accountability must occur (1) individually, allowing for careful administration of executive duties; and (2) in practice, allowing for the judicious discretion and execution of executive powers. Alexander Hamilton was clear in his faith and built a foundation for a responsible executive, through his Biblical worldview. Whilst the Founding Father’s sought to create a powerful president, they simultaneously ensured that his actions would be restrained; limited by the powers of Congress and the supremacy of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers obligated America’s president to serve with a liability to the citizens who elected him. Moreover, Hamilton ensured the president’s role would be exclusive in its capacity to execute necessary executive duties, without succumbing to political intervention. Hamilton’s executive system has remained effective since its inception. Now, it remains the duty of the modern executive to preserve it.
Bibliography
Archives. (Accessed on March 6th, 2025). III. Thoughts on Government, April 1776. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0026-0004
CRS. (Accessed on March 6th, 2025). The Take Care Clause and Executive Discretion in the Enforcement of Law. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43708
Dreisbach, D. L. (2017). Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers. Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Jones, A. (2022). The Great Reset: And the War for the World. Skyhorse. Autographed Edition.
Kengor, P. (2014). 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. [VitalSource Bookshelf 10.3.1]. Retrieved from vbk://9780825306587
LII. (Accessed on March 6th, 2025). Emoluments Clause and Presidential Compensation. U.S. Constitution Annotated. US Law. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-7/emoluments-clause-and-presidential-compensation
LII. (Accessed on March 6th, 2025). Historical Background on Impeachable Offenses. U.S. Constitution Annotated. US Law. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/historical-background-on-impeachable-offenses
LII. (Accessed on March 5th, 2025). The President's Powers, Myers, and Seila. U.S. Constitution Annotated. US Law. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-1/the-presidents-powers-myers-and-seila
LII. (Accessed on March 5th, 2025). Succession Clause for the Presidency. U.S. Constitution Annotated. US Law. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-6/succession-clause-for-the-presidency
Mansfield, Jr., H. C. (1987). The Modern Doctrine of Executive Power. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 17(2), 237–252. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40574448
Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency: 6th Edition. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Cengage Publishing
Scott, J. B. (1926). Government Of Laws And Not Of Men. Advocate of Peace through Justice, 88(6), 360–368. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20661297
