Editor’s Note: A guest post by U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins.
“Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those who they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrifice to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind.”
These are the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 70, arguing against plurality in the Executive. Hamilton recognized that others in the Executive may attempt to undermine the policies of the President as a matter of contempt and personal ambition. This is why Article II of our Constitution vested the power of the Executive within the President of the United States, to ensure, as Hamilton argued, the “qualities in the Executive which are the most necessary ingredients in its composition, vigor and expedition.” For these reasons, the Constitution further grants the President broad authority to conduct matters of foreign policy.
This sentiment was further asserted by General George Washington during his first State of the Union Address, wherein he emphasized the Executive’s authority on matters of foreign affairs. Washington stated, “The interests of the United States require, that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfill my duty in that respect, in the manner, which circumstances may render most conducive to the public good.”
Democrats have launched their impeachment investigation based upon the hearsay testimony, presumption, and opinions of unelected DC bureaucrats. Those who lacked first-hand knowledge of the President’s foreign policy considerations and objectives. Those who, by their own actions and associations, found themselves outside the President’s circle of trust, yet were none the less bound to represent the President’s policies. Bound by the oath of their own service within the Executive, services rendered at the pleasure of the President. Testimony, often bitter in nature and absent hard fact, offered by those who have been overtaken with personal ambition. Nothing illegal. No high crimes and misdemeanors. Just dissension amongst some few bureaucrats who were tasked with executing the President’s foreign policy. This is eerily similar to the warnings of Hamilton.
General George Washington was inaugurated as America’s first President on April 30, 1789, and Alexander Hamilton was sworn in as America’s first Secretary of the Treasury on September 11, 1789.
The wisdom of our Founding Fathers is remarkable. Their writings anointed. Their warnings ring through the ages, contemporary still. We would serve our nation well to heed their words.
Wake up, America.
MEMBER OF CONGRESS