The executive power has so important an influence
on the destinies of nations that I am inclined to
pause for an instant at this portion of my subject,
in order more clearly to explain the part it sustains
in America. In order to form an accurate idea
of the position of the President of the United States,
it may not be irrelevant to compare it to that of
one of the constitutional kings of Europe. In
this comparison I shall pay but little attention to
the external signs of power, which are more apt to
deceive the eye of the observer than to guide his
researches. When a monarchy is being gradually
transformed into a republic, the executive power retains
the titles, the honors, the etiquette, and even the
funds of royalty long after its authority has disappeared.
The English, after having cut off the head of one king
and expelled another from his throne, were accustomed
to accost the successor of those princes upon their
knees. On the other hand, when a republic falls
under the sway of a single individual, the demeanor
of the sovereign is simple and unpretending, as if
his authority was not yet paramount. When the
emperors exercised an unlimited control over the fortunes
and the lives of their fellow-citizens, it was customary
to call them Caesar in conversation, and they were
in the habit of supping without formality at their
friends’ houses. It is therefore necessary
to look below the surface.
The sovereignty of the United States is shared between
the Union and the States, whilst in France it is undivided
and compact: hence arises the first and the most
notable difference which exists between the President
of the United States and the King of France. In
the United States the executive power is as limited
and partial as the sovereignty of the Union in whose
name it acts; in France it is as universal as the
authority of the State. The Americans have a federal
and the French a national Government.
Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part II
This cause of inferiority results from the nature
of things, but it is not the only one; the second
in importance is as follows: Sovereignty may
be defined to be the right of making laws: in
France, the King really exercises a portion of the
sovereign power, since the laws have no weight till
he has given his assent to them; he is, moreover, the
executor of all they ordain. The President is
also the executor of the laws, but he does not really
co-operate in their formation, since the refusal of
his assent does not annul them. He is therefore
merely to be considered as the agent of the sovereign
power. But not only does the King of France exercise
a portion of the sovereign power, he also contributes
to the nomination of the legislature, which exercises
the other portion. He has the privilege of appointing
the members of one chamber, and of dissolving the
other at his pleasure; whereas the President of the
United States has no share in the formation of the
Copyrights
Democracy in America — Volume 1 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.
