Origins and the Framers’ Intent
The office of the President of the United States, as described by historian Harlow Giles Unger, was invented by George Washington. Unger argues that Washington “did invent the presidency as we know it” and was “the greatest president we’ve ever had.” According to Unger, the Constitutional Convention originally created a figurehead as president because the delegates had lived under the tyranny of King George III and were determined not to create a new monarch in the executive branch. The Constitution states that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States,” but it fails to define executive power. Unger notes that James Madison described the executive as the weaker branch of the system, and that the Constitution begins with “We the People,” not “We the President.” The framers, in Unger’s account, hoped the president would sit in his seat and do nothing. How Washington Invented the Presidency (2013)
Bob Zadek, in conversation with Unger, observed that the Constitution contains very little about what the President is supposed to do or how the office relates to the other branches, describing it as virtually a few syllables of commentary on what is now the most important political office in the world. Unger agreed, noting that the Constitution says the president should execute the office of the President, “whatever that means,” and that it means nothing. How Washington Invented the Presidency (2013)
The Electoral College and Presidential Selection
Peter Wallison, speaking with Bob Zadek, explained that the Electoral College was established during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, when there were about three million people in the United States scattered along the East Coast and communication went at the speed of a horse. Many people, being farmers separated from cities and towns, would not have known who might be the kind of person who should be president. The founding fathers’ idea, Wallison said, was to find people likely to be connected to one another throughout the thirteen colonies—people who kept in touch by writing and visiting—who would be able to identify the best people in the country to serve as president. These people were designated as electors. Each state was told it could have the number of electors equal to its representatives in Congress plus two senators. The electors would get together and select the people who would run for president and vice president. Wallison stated that this narrowed down the number of potential candidates for the highest office and made it possible for people to vote for a limited group instead of a massive group of unknown people. Will We Know Who the President Is on November 4? (2020)
Ray Haynes, in a later episode, discussed the National Popular Vote compact and arguments against it. He noted that fourteen or so states had signed on to the compact, but not yet enough to account for 270 Electoral College votes. The strongest argument against it, he said, is that “we haven’t done it, so we don’t know what’s going to happen.” The most often made argument, which he considered weak, is that it will eliminate the states as a political institution. Haynes countered that if a state is a safe Republican or safe Democrat state, it is already irrelevant—nobody comes and talks to you, nobody argues for your vote. A third argument is that the compact is not the framers’ intent. Haynes responded that the framers of the Constitution had no intent because they could not reach an agreement at the Constitutional Convention and left it up to the states to decide. He said that as a state legislator, his mindset was that he wanted the voters in his district to make a difference to the president of the United States, and at that time they did not. He changed his mind on the issue and became a full-throated supporter of the idea. What’s Wrong with “Winner Takes All”? Another Look at the Electoral College (2020)
Third-Party Candidacies and the Presidency
In a 2012 episode, Bob Zadek interviewed Governor Gary Johnson, who had announced he would be a candidate for the Libertarian nomination for President. Zadek stated that the Libertarian Party is, he believed, on the ballot in all 50 states. Zadek shared his bias in favor of Johnson and noted that a recent political poll indicated that about two-thirds of Americans would consider voting for a third-party candidate. Zadek described the country as remarkably unhappy with the current slate of possible Republican candidates and with President Obama, who would be the Democratic candidate, and said the public was in a foul mood and unhappy with the choices. The Triumph of Principle Over Politics (2012)
Johnson told Zadek that the number one issue is the economy and jobs, and that the President of the United States could play the biggest role in creating a level playing field for everybody to be able to get those jobs. Johnson promised, as President, to submit a balanced budget to Congress in 2013 and to advocate throwing out the entire federal tax system and replacing it with the Fair Tax. He described the Fair Tax as doing away with all existing federal tax—income tax, corporate tax—and with withholdings, replacing them with a 23% consumption tax. He said it does away with the 16th Amendment, which allows for income tax, and that it is cost-neutral over a very short amount of time. Johnson also said that in a zero corporate tax rate environment, if the private sector does not create tens of millions of jobs, he did not know under what circumstances it would. The Triumph of Principle Over Politics (2012)
Impeachment and the Presidency
In a 2020 episode, Bob Zadek presented a hypothetical to John Rothmann involving President Donald Trump’s conversation with Zelensky. Zadek asked: if Trump believed or was told that Joe Biden was sharing state secrets with Ukraine, and Trump said out loud that he had to get to the bottom of it because Biden was a possible traitor and Trump could get rid of a political opponent, had Trump committed an impeachable offense? Rothmann answered that the minute you mention Joe Biden’s name, you open that door which will be expressed by the president’s defenders, who will go after Biden on grounds of corruption. Rothmann emphasized that Biden was not about to be impeached or convicted by the Senate and was not on trial. What was on trial, he said, is that the president of the United States asked the leader of a foreign nation to investigate a potential political opponent while at the same time holding up aid appropriated by Congress. Rothmann called those facts indisputable. Withholding Judgment on Impeachment with John Rothmann (2020)
Rothmann argued that impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate is a political, not a legal, issue. He said that if Barack Obama had done that, Republicans would have called for his immediate removal from office. He noted that Republicans were saying “Yes, he did it, but it doesn’t matter,” and that Democrats did the same thing with Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Rothmann said the president should have gone to the Attorney General and had an investigation initiated by the Justice Department, which is the normal process. He stated that for a president to invite the president of a foreign nation who is dependent completely on us to dig up dirt on a political opponent is unconscionable. He also said the president broke the law when he held up the aid in a quid pro quo, and cited Mick Mulvaney, who standing in the briefing room at the White House said, “Of course it was a quid pro quo. Get over it.” Rothmann predicted the trial would be over within a week and the president would be acquitted on a party-line vote, more or less, 53 to 47. He noted that the latest polls showed 53% of Americans believed the president should be removed from office, and that if that were true, he would lose the election. Withholding Judgment on Impeachment with John Rothmann (2020)
Across episodes
The excerpts show no development across episodes on the question of the presidency; each episode treats a distinct facet—the office’s creation, its electoral selection, third-party challenges, and impeachment—without revisiting or revising earlier treatments. The 2013 episode with Harlow Giles Unger addresses the founding and Washington’s role; the 2020 episodes with Peter Wallison and Ray Haynes address the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote compact; the 2012 episode with Gary Johnson addresses a third-party candidacy; and the 2020 episode with John Rothmann addresses impeachment. No speaker in a later episode engages with the arguments or claims made in an earlier one.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state the outcome of the 2012 Libertarian nomination or the general election, nor do they provide the name of any bill, statute, or case that might have shaped the presidency. The sources do not cover the specific constitutional provisions governing impeachment beyond the general description of it as a political process, nor do they state which amendment or article the impeachment power derives from. The excerpts also do not cover the actual results of the 2020 election or the Senate trial’s conclusion beyond Rothmann’s prediction.