Modern Presidency Framers

The pro agreement for the framers approving of the modern presidency centers around the belief that all the essential tasks of the modern presidency are centered in what was put in the Constitution. Nichols believes these key elements are executive discretion, legislative leadership, a substantial administrative apparatus directed by the president and the president’s role as a popular leader. Due to the weakness of the Confederation government, certain framers felt that a strong executive was necessary to hold the system together and operate independently from the legislature. There is also an argument that Congress is not quick to react to situations, which really should not come as a surprise to anyone. By having an effective executive, situations could be reacted to when they happen, rather than reacted to when they came out of committee. The president would also need popular support, which led to a debate about popular election. This led to the Electoral College, because no one wanted to talk about slavery, which sounds a lot like the modern presidency. Because of these and other factors, the framers, some of whom were farmers, would approve of the modern presidency.
The con argument feels that the job description of the modern president revolves around three central roles: chief legislator, popular leader, and chief …show more content…
After the Washington single handedly won the revolution by challenging King George to “one v. one me bro”, the framers were not keen on a strong executive. They also spent way more time outlining the powers of the legislative branch. Based on how the constructed the Constitution, it seems like they believed that the legislature would be the driving force that would hold the will of the people, rather than the executive. On top of that, I do not believe they would approve of the large executive administration loaded with political