WI: POTUS could appoint a Chancellor of the House?

Rather simple, what if rather then the House electing it's own leader the President could appoint someone to lead it? Would this have reeked too much of monarchy? If it did pass who would Washington choose as the first Chancellor?
 
I think its possible, the Washington administration did set a lot of precedents. Perhaps if someone like Adams or Hamilton opted to run for elections in the House, Washington could have given the initiative of governing to them and give himself more of a symbolic role.
 
Washington probably privately sought to relieve himself of the non-ceremonial parts of the presidency particularly at the end of his first term but he recognised the divisiveness that a more partisan leader would instill.
 
I think its possible, the Washington administration did set a lot of precedents. Perhaps if someone like Adams or Hamilton opted to run for elections in the House, Washington could have given the initiative of governing to them and give himself more of a symbolic role.

Washington would more then likely choose Hamilton as Chancellor with Adams still being Vice President.
Another question would be if the P. Dies in office and is succeeded by the V. P. Does the chancellor becomes vp and the new p choses a new chancellor? A second choice on succession
 
I think its possible, the Washington administration did set a lot of precedents. Perhaps if someone like Adams or Hamilton opted to run for elections in the House, Washington could have given the initiative of governing to them and give himself more of a symbolic role.

It's too late by then, as it would be a violation of Article I Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution - "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; ...". Also, neither Adams nor Hamilton -if and while serving in the government in any capacity- are eligible to be a member of either House of Congress (Article I.6.2).


Washington would more then likely choose Hamilton as Chancellor with Adams still being Vice President.
Another question would be if the P. Dies in office and is succeeded by the V. P. Does the chancellor becomes vp and the new p choses a new chancellor? A second choice on succession

~ Not if Hamilton is secretary of the Treasury.
~ The Vice Presidency remains vacant if the VP dies, resigns, is removed from office or becomes POTUS.
 
It's too late by then, as it would be a violation of Article I Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution - "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; ...". Also, neither Adams nor Hamilton -if and while serving in the government in any capacity- are eligible to be a member of either House of Congress (Article I.

I am aware.

I'm suggesting that Washington endorse or advise the house to elect a chancellor. The actual voting would be done by the House.

Also I was suggesting that Adams or Hamilton opt to run for the House and nothing else.
 
Note: When I envisioned the idea of a Chancellor I imagined an actual Constitutional position in the House of Representatives that must be appointed by the President, and serves at their pleasure. If the President died and was replaced by the VP, the new President could choose to retain the Chancellor or dismiss him. And If Washington wanted to choose a "non-partisan" first Chancellor, would someone like James Madison do?
 
Would this really make a huge difference in how the US and its political system evolved? In effect, the executive already "chooses" the president of the senate (who is the VP and can cast tie-breaking votes). Wouldn't this "chancellor" of the House be basically his equivalent... a tie-breaker with a largely ceremonal role?

I don't see why this chancellor would become the "head of government" for a quasi-monarchical US president any more than what was in OTL.
 
Note: When I envisioned the idea of a Chancellor I imagined an actual Constitutional position in the House of Representatives that must be appointed by the President, and serves at their pleasure. If the President died and was replaced by the VP, the new President could choose to retain the Chancellor or dismiss him. And If Washington wanted to choose a "non-partisan" first Chancellor, would someone like James Madison do?

Well that's a bit different. I think the President appointing someone for a Congressional position goes against the principle of Separation of Powers.
 
Well that's a bit different. I think the President appointing someone for a Congressional position goes against the principle of Separation of Powers.

Why would you say that? Even in OTL, the President appoints people for judicial positions, even though the judiciary is a separate branch of government. In this ATL constitution, the "appointment power" might well be seen as a function of the Executive branch.
 
On the basic OP

You would have a completely different US constitution.

The House of Representatives is/was analogous to the Commons, the President to the Monarch.

Having the Monarch dictate to the the Commons how it runs its business is a beheading matter.
 
Leaving aside the constitutional complexities, it simply wouldn't matter much if the House didn't go along.
Before the party system solidified, the President's proposed leader would probably be ratified by the House but once a Congress with a majority opposed to the President was elected, they would simply reject the nominee.
 
As an aside, this is traditionally the way that legislative leaders are chosen in Louisiana, despite the absence of any state law to that effect.
 
Well that's a bit different. I think the President appointing someone for a Congressional position goes against the principle of Separation of Powers.

Really? This is how I see it. The President appoints his cabinet (Executive) and the entire Judiciary, why not 1 position in the Legislate branch too?
 
On the basic OP

You would have a completely different US constitution.

The House of Representatives is/was analogous to the Commons, the President to the Monarch.

Having the Monarch dictate to the the Commons how it runs its business is a beheading matter.

Sorry no, the monarch is the very person who chooses the Government. (She always picks the leader of the majority in the Commons, but that's just because she's studiously nonpartisan and because any leader needs to maintain the confidence of the House).
 
On the basic OP

You would have a completely different US constitution.

The House of Representatives is/was analogous to the Commons, the President to the Monarch.

Having the Monarch dictate to the the Commons how it runs its business is a beheading matter.

Actually the monarch was (and theoretically still is) responsible for appointing the Prime Minister (for whom I presume the OP's Chancellor is intended to be an analogue). Admittedly by the 1770s this power was less important than it had been, but the monarch's role hadn't yet become the rubber-stamping procedure it is now -- IIRC the last monarch to appoint a PM against the wishes of Parliament was William IV in the 1830s.
 
Yes and Peel lasted 4 months ( for one of which he was in Italy) because he did not command a commons majority.

While the Monarch at any point can appoint ministers (as the President can appoint cabinet members and judges subject to confirmation) neither can create a majority in the lower house, that is the prerogative of the electors. Without a Majority in the commons at least no money bills get passed no revenue is collected and in 18th century terms the Mutiny acts are not renewed so the army dissolves.

Its nothing to do with being studiously non partisan it because without a commons majority it is not possible the govern for long in a parliamentary system.

The US constitution does emerge from thin air it is a designer version of the practices they knew and understood written by men and a ghost. One of the practices they knew and understood would not work is attempting to impose control on the legislative function by the executive and the model they have is the English civil wars.

As originally written the the constitution says President is elected by electors appointed by the several state legislatures in manners of their own choosing and has no direct mandate from the voters.

If there is a position of a Chancellor who controls the lower house and that person is anyone except the one who commands a majority in that house then at best there is a recipe for stasis and continual strife until one side or the other imposes its will either by election or by force.

Most likely the result is the president becomes a notable anodyne person with vast constitutional powers actually exercised by the Chancellor a la BRD.

That is bleedin obvious which why the writers of the constitution avoided it.

As I said having that in place leads to an entirely different constitution.
 
Top