Antifederalist No. 71 

THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM OF OFFICE 


Part 1:  Luther Martin, The Genuine Information Part 2:  An 
excerpt from the 18th letter of "AGRIPPA" appearing in The 
Massachusetts Gazette on February 5, 1788. Part 3: From by "A 
CUSTOMER" in the Maine Cumberland Gazette, March 13, 1788. 


     .... The second article relates to the executive-his mode of 
election, his powers, and the length of time he should continue 
in office. 
     On this subject there was a great diversity of sentiment [at 
the Philadelphia constitutional convention]. Many of the members 
were desirous that the President should be elected for seven 
years, and not to be eligible a second time.  Others proposed 
that he should not be absolutely ineligible, but that he should 
not be capable of being chosen a second time, until the 
expiration of a certain number of years.  The supporters of the 
above proposition went upon the idea that the best security for 
liberty was a limited duration, and a rotation of office, in the 
chief executive department. 
     There was a party who attempted to have the President 
appointed during good behavior, without any limitation as to 
time; and, not being able to succeed in that attempt, they then 
endeavored to have him reeligible without any restraint.  It was 
objected that the choice of a President to continue in office 
during good behavior, would at once be rendering our system an 
elective monarchy; and that, if the President was to be 
reeligible without any interval of disqualification, it would 
amount nearly to the same thing, since, from the powers that the 
President is to enjoy, and the interests and influence with which 
they will be attended, he will be almost absolutely certain of 
being reelected from time to time, as long as he lives.  As the 
propositions were reported by the committee of the whole house, 
the President was to be chosen for seven years, and not to be 
eligible at any time after.  In the same manner, the proposition 
was agreed to in Convention; and so it was reported by the 
committee of detail, although a variety of attempts were made to 
alter that part of the system by those who were of a contrary 
opinion, in which they repeatedly failed; but, sir, by never 
losing sight of their object, and choosing a proper time for 
their purpose, they succeeded, at length, in obtaining the 
alteration, which was not made until within the last twelve days 
before the Convention adjourned.... 
     Resolved, that the constitution lately proposed for the 
United States be received only upon the following conditions. . . 
. 
     The president shall be chosen annually and shall serve but 
one year, and shall be chosen successively from the different 
states, changing every year.... 
                        AGRIPPA 

     I have one difficulty in my mind respecting our admirable 
Constitution, which I hope somebody will attempt to remove.  Art. 
3, sect. 1: "The 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." Here is no declaration that a new one 
shall be chosen at the expiration of that time.  "Congress may 
determine the time of choosing the electors; and the day on which 
they shall give their votes." But suppose they should think it 
for the public good, after the first election, to appoint the 
first Tuesday of September, in the year two thousand, for the 
purpose of choosing the second President; and by law empower the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to act as President 
until that time.  However disagreeable it might be to the 
majority of the States, I do not see but that they are left 
without a remedy, provided four States should be satisfied with 
the measure.  The President elected is not to receive any other 
emolument; yet the Chief Justice is not disqualified as a Judge.  
Why did our worthy Chief Justice, at Cambridge the year past, in 
his address to the Grand Jury, call upon them to support "that 
free and excellent Constitution, which it has cost the blood of 
thousands of our friends and fellow citizens to establish; that 
Constitution which has carefully separated and distinguished the 
principal departments of power, that they might never combine 
against the liberty of the subject"-if it is not a necessary 
article in a constitution?  If necessary in a State constitution, 
why not in one for the whole people?  Was it not as easy to have 
said the President should be chosen every fourth year, as to have 
said the Representatives shall be chosen every second year?  The 
celebrated Mr. King observes that this is not a confederation of 
States-for the style is in the name of the people. Therefore, it 
appears to me, the rights of the people should be as well 
guarded, on this point, here, as in the constitution of a 
State.... 
                                A CUSTOMER