What Two Crucial Words in the Constitution Actually Mean

Thank you, my friend PO1 Tony Holland for posting the perspective from Law professor Julian Davis Mortenson.
I have read the federalist papers and the pseudonym-laden Ant-Federalist papers, studied Constitutional Law and studied the US Constitution as well.

I read through the analysis of Julian Davis Mortenson and had to chuckle at the idea of "monarchical authority." In the 18th century monarchical authority included the Divine Right of Kings.

The examples he used from 21st century Presidents Bush and Obama administrations especially DOJ and Trump supporters is interesting. However the straw-man he established of "monarchical authority"seem to be very biased. I doubt anybody other than Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche Jr. and his supporters would believe that any President beginning with George Washington would attempt to use "monarchical authority" Presidents chafe against the legislative and judicial branches at times but they would never actually ride roughshod over the Constitutional balance of power.


“The executive power” granted at the American founding was conceptually, legally, and semantically incapable of conveying a reservoir of royal authority. The real meaning of executive power was something almost embarrassingly simple: the power to execute the law. Overwhelming evidence for this point pervades both the Founders’ debates and the legal and political theory on which their discussions drew.


What do you think? COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Orlando Illi Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. "Bill" Price CPT Jack Durish Capt Tom Brown CMSgt (Join to see) MSG Andrew White SFC William Farrell SGT (Join to see) Sgt Albert Castro SSgt Boyd Herrst SGT Charles H. Hawes SSG Martin Byrne PO1 William "Chip" Nagel CPT Gabe SnellLTC Greg Henning

Excellent article brother Tony.

There is no doubt, whatsoever, what the Founders had in mind. For me, the "context" can be found in the "other" great revolution of the period...in France. In both instances, a "divine right" monarch (and associated aristocracy) was replaced with some form of representative government. In both circumstances, the revolution was born of the excesses of said monarchies, and the desire to re-create, as opposed to reform, government. Both were influenced heavily by "Enlightenment" philosophies, both were precipitated by acts of violence, and both ushered in subsequent periods of conflict (which some may argue constituted a single, worldwide conflict). What differed, was the approach to distributing power once it had been seized.

18th Century Americans were not starving as their French counterparts were. King George III was, arguably, a much better ruler than King Louis XVI, and Britons had already fought (and won) a civil war that led to limits on the monarch's power, and formed the basis of parliamentary government still present in the UK today. Quite understandably, our revolutionary leaders had a more comprehensive starting point than those in France... and what they ultimately adopted, was a more "perfect" form of the reforms instituted nearly a century and a half earlier.

Consequently, our representative form of government sought to preserve what was "good" about the parliamentary system, while excising what was "bad" about the monarchy. In stark opposition, the French were attempting to replace ALL executive authority with a more ambiguous, and ultimately, futile notion of the will of the people. I believe that when viewed through the modern eye, this is where the questions arise; yes-we have very strong centralized government departments, but no... we're a very long way from any sort of "imperialism".