Antifederalist No. 72 

ON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; ON REELIGIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT 


     By an anonymous writer "REPUBLICUS," appearing in The 
Kentucky Gazette on March 1, 1788. 



     . .  I go now to Art. 2, Sec. 1, which vest the supreme 
continental executive power in a president-in order to the choice 
of whom, the legislative body of each state is empowered to point 
out to their constituents some mode of choice, or (to save 
trouble) may choose themselves, a certain number of electors, who 
shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot, for 
two persons, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of 
the same state with themselves.  Or in other words, they shall 
vote for two, one or both of whom they know nothing of.  An 
extraordinary refinement this, on the plain simple business of 
election; and of which the grand convention have certainly the 
honor of being the first inventors; and that for an officer too, 
of so much importance as a president - invested with legislative 
and executive powers; who is to be commander in chief of the 
army, navy, militia, etc.; grant reprieves and pardons; have a 
temporary negative on all bills and resolves; convene and adjourn 
both houses of congress; be supreme conservator of laws; 
commission all officers; make treaties; and who is to continue 
four years, and is only removable on conviction of treason or 
bribery, and triable only by the senate, who are to be his own 
council, whose interest in every instance runs parallel with his 
own, and who are neither the officers of the people, nor 
accountable to them. 
     Is it then become necessary, that a free people should first 
resign their right of suffrage into other hands besides their 
own, and then, secondly, that they to whom they resign it should 
be compelled to choose men, whose persons, characters, manners, 
or principles they know nothing of?  And, after all (excepting 
some such change as is not likely to happen twice in the same 
century) to intrust Congress with the final decision at last?  Is 
it necessary, is it rational, that the sacred rights of mankind 
should thus dwindle down to Electors of electors, and those again 
electors of other electors?  This seems to be degrading them even 
below the prophetical curse denounced by the good old patriarch, 
on the offspring of his degenerate son: "servant of servants". . 
. 
    Again I would ask (considering how prone mankind are to 
engross power, and then to abuse it) is it not probable, at least 
possible, that the president who is to be vested with all this 
demiomnipotence - who is not chosen by the community; and who 
consequently, as to them, is irresponsible and independent-that 
he, I say, by a few artful and dependent emissaries in Congress, 
may not only perpetuate his own personal administration, but also 
make it hereditary?  By the same means, he may render his 
suspensive power over the laws as operative and permanent as that 
of G. the 3d over the acts of the British parliament; and under 
the modest title of president, may exercise the combined 
authority of legislation and execution, in a latitude yet 
unthought of.  Upon his being invested with those powers a second 
or third time, he may acquire such enormous influence-as, added 
to his uncontrollable power over the army, navy, and militia; 
together with his private interest in the officers of all these 
different departments, who are all to be appointed by himself, 
and so his creatures, in the true political sense of the word; 
and more especially when added to all this, he has the power of 
forming treaties and alliances, and calling them to his 
assistance-that he may, I say, under all these advantages and 
almost irresistible temptations, on some pretended pique, 
haughtily and contemptuously, turn our poor lower house (the only 
shadow of liberty we shall have left) out of doors, and give us 
law at the bayonet's point.  Or, may not the senate, who are 
nearly in the same situation, with respect to the people, from 
similar motives and by similar means, erect themselves easily 
into an oligarchy, towards which they have already attempted so 
large a stride?  To one of which channels, or rather to a 
confluence of both, we seem to be fast gliding away; and the 
moment we arrive at it-farewell liberty. . . . 
     To conclude, I can think of but one source of right to 
government, or any branch of it-and that is THE PEOPLE. They, and 
only they, have a right to determine whether they will make laws, 
or execute them, or do both in a collective body, or by a 
delegated authority. Delegation is a positive actual investiture.  
Therefore if any people are subjected to an authority which they 
have not thus actually chosen-even though they may have tamely 
submitted to it-yet it is not their legitimate government.  They 
are wholly passive, and as far as they are so, are in a state of 
slavery.  Thank heaven we are not yet arrived at that state.  And 
while we continue to have sense enough to discover and detect, 
and virtue en(>ugh to detest and oppose every attempt, either of 
force or fraud, either from without or within, to bring us into 
it, we never will. 
     Let us therefore continue united in the cause of rational 
liberty.  Let unity and liberty be our mark as well as our motto.  
For only such an union can secure our freedom; and division will 
inevitably destroy it.  Thus a mountain of sand may peace meal 
[sic] be removed by the feeble hands of a child; but if 
consolidated into a rock, it mocks the united efforts of mankind, 
and can only fall in a general wreck of nature. 
                                REPUBLICUS