We’ve spent weeks talking about Article I of the new constitution, establishing Congress as the most powerful branch of the new government. But that one-legged stool needed support in governing the young nation. The laws must be enforced and, when disputes arise, someone must settle those disputes. Hark — Article II and Article III were written to address those concerns.

The Articles of Confederation had no enforcement powers or an enforcer. The delegates knew that they had to design an executive branch, but finding the correct balance of authority and power was once again difficult. The executive and his “people” had to have enough power — and a bit of independence — to act on the legislation passed, but at the same time there had to be reins on that power and independence. As the delegates were learning, such difficult tasks required careful deliberation and judicious compromise. Creating a trustworthy executive branch after having just won independence from a tone-deaf English king was a daunting task.

Questions and answers helped craft the executive branch.

Did the new nation need a single executive or a body of executives?

History lessons helped inform that decision. Kings normally ruled alone, except for the dual monarchy of Ancient Sparta, and everyone remembered the Spartan warriors. But wait: memories of the Roman Republic had always inspired lovers of balanced power, and its triumvirates had ruled well — until they did not. Saying aloud the names of Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus, the First Triumvirate, recalled the glory days of the republic, especially when we chose to ignore the infighting and power-grabbing. The Second Triumvirate — Octavian, Mark Anthony, and Lepidius — struggled with a balance of power too. By the time that Octavian was 27, he had renamed himself Augustus and was ruling as emperor without the title, Anthony had died with his Cleopatra, and Lepidus had long been banished to a remote island. Hmm, a multi-headed executive branch did not seem to have a great legacy either.

The Framers went to work designing a single-leader executive branch.

Now that they knew there would be one man in charge (no discussion of widening those doors to include the ladies!), how long would he serve? After much debate and several proposed terms, a four-year term was chosen with no restriction on campaigning for a second term. The idea that any one person would be elected more than two terms would have been alien to the Framers, so there was no limit on terms until a constitutional amendment would be ratified following FDR’s election four times.

How much power would be enough without being too much?

The debates were fierce, but they finally agreed on specific responsibilities that included enforcing the laws enacted by Congress, the right to choose and nominate people for positions within the executive branch (and judicial), the role as the chief representative of the government of the United States in negotiations with foreign countries and officials, and ultimate military charge as the commander-in-chief during times of war and international crises. He could also pardon individuals convicted of crimes and could designate ambassadors to represent him and the United States and officially receive foreign dignitaries. Think about all those state dinners…

Then, the delegates began fine-tuning the concept that we know today as “checks and balances,” with a bit of inspiration from the Baron de Montesquieu. The president would share in legislative powers in several ways:

— He could veto a bill and Congress would be forced to override his veto with a two-thirds vote second passage.

— He could inform some proposed legislation as needed for the ability to fulfill his responsibilities.

— He could nominate individuals to fill executive positions and federal judiciary posts with senatorial approval.

— The president (or his representatives) could negotiate treaties, but the Senate was required to approve each with a two-thirds vote.

— As commander-in-chief, the president could ask for a declaration of war and Congress would then vote for authorization. (This power would often be a line in shifting sands…)

Interestingly, James Madison’s extensive notes from the constitutional debates allow us a view into the Framers’ thoughts as they designed this office — with George Washington as the prototype. They trusted him. Like Cincinnatus of ancient glory days, he had led his army into victory, then relinquished power and returned home to plow his fields. He had demonstrated that power was not his tonic; instead, he was a servant leader, and that concept helped fashion the role of the president.

What about the judiciary? Next week, friends — next week!