I've been reading about the Pacificus-Helvidius debate of 1793 for my Foreign Relations Law class and have found myself taking sides with Hamilton again and again. For those unfamiliar with the Pacificus-Helvidius debate - Hamilton and Madison took up their respective quill pens to debate "the nature and scope of presidential power, the separation of powers in foreign relations, and the proper methods of constitutional interpretation" in light of President Washington's controversial Neutrality Proclamation in 1793.
Revolutionary France had declared war on Great Britain, Spain, Holland, Austria, and Prussia and wanted U.S. help in protecting the French West Indies and allowing French warships to bring prizes into U.S. ports while simultaneously barring France's enemies use of U.S. ports. Washington correctly decided that the U.S. should have no part in the war and issued a statement to that effect. The Neutrality Proclamation was controversial for two main reasons: (1) "it was not authorized by Congress"; and (2) it was "construed as a repudiation of U.S. treaty obligations to France."
Hamilton, writing as Pacificus, argued that the Executive branch was the only branch of government competent to make a declaration of neutrality because the issuance of such a proclamation was "merely an executive act" and since all "general executive power of the Union is vested in the President, the conclusion is, that the step, which has been taken by him, is liable to no just exception on the score of authority." Hamilton also argued that "the text and structure of the Constitution make the President the sole organ of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations." Congress alone may be able to declare war, but the Executive branch must have the power to keep the peace.
This broad interpretation of executive power was roundly criticized by, among others, Jefferson and Madison. The latter of whom later replied to Hamilton's argument writing as Helvidius. Madison rebukes Hamilton by slandering him as a monarchist and claiming that Hamilton's view of executive power invades the rights of both the legislative and the judicial branches of the government.
I agree with Hamilton's more expansive view of presidential powers in relation to foreign relations. The United States must speak with one voice to foreign nations that voice can only be the President's. The Senate can hardly speak with one voice on anything - we don't want to leave them in charge of foreign relations. The House has too many members to effectively conduct U.S. foreign relations. The judiciary has no Constitutional role in foreign relations - so it can't conduct foreign relations anyway. That leaves one branch - the Executive, and its head - the President.
The President alone has daily access to secret and sensitive information from around the world; the State Department is part of the Executive Branch. He alone has the power to meet with foreign ambassadors and other diplomats.
The President is uniquely situated constitutionally so as to truly be "the sole organ of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations."