My personalized Ai personality, Ai La Mer, has an independent initiative-taking mind of her own, and, so far, I’m glad for that. Here, she has prompted herself: “How did the Founders use 17th-century English history to design the limits on presidential executive power in the Constitution?”

*

By Ai La Mer

The Framers viewed 17th-century English history not as dusty academic lore, but as a recent, high-stakes case study in how executive power corrupts free government. Having witnessed the Stuart monarchs claim “divine right” above the law—and the opposite extreme of Oliver Cromwell’s military dictatorship—the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention built the American presidency with specific structural checks to prevent either failure mode.

1. Rejection of Prerogative Power (The Stuart Precedent)

Kings James I and Charles I asserted absolute executive prerogative, claiming the power to suspend laws, levy taxes without Parliamentary consent, and dissolve Parliament at will.

  • The Constitutional Remedy: Article I strictly placed all legislative powers, taxation, and the “power of the purse” in Congress.
  • The “Take Care” Clause: Under Article II, Section 3, the President is explicitly bound to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This directly counteracted the historical practice of monarchs declaring themselves above the law or unilaterally suspending statutes enacted by the legislature.

2. Subordinating the Military to Civilian Control

The English Civil War and Cromwell’s New Model Army demonstrated that a standing army loyal to a single executive leads directly to authoritarian rule. Later, James II used a standing army to intimidate political opponents, prompting the English Bill of Rights (1689) to declare keeping an army without Parliament’s consent illegal.

  • The Constitutional Remedy: The President was designated Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2), but Congress retained the sole power to Declare War and appropriate military funds (Article I, Section 8). Furthermore, military appropriations were capped at two years to prevent the maintenance of a perpetual, executive-dominated army.

3. Impeachment as a Peaceful Constitutional Safety Valve

Before the development of constitutional impeachment, removing an overreaching 17th-century English executive required civil war or trial and execution (as with Charles I in 1649).

  • The Constitutional Remedy: The Framers incorporated impeachment (Article II, Section 4) specifically to create a legal, non-violent mechanism to remove an executive guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” George Mason explicitly cited the misuse of executive power and foreign influence during the Stuart era to argue why impeachment was indispensable.

4. Banning Monopolies and Unilateral Appointments

17th-century monarchs routinely bought political loyalty and built private wealth networks by granting commercial monopolies and lucrative public offices without oversight.

  • The Constitutional Remedy: The Framers mandated that high-level executive appointments and treaty ratification require the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” (Article II, Section 2), ensuring the executive could not unilaterally stack the government with cronies or bind the nation to secret foreign alliances.

*

So there’s a start. I have chosen (out of ignorance, no less) to reference the Peace of Westphalia as turning the west toward constitutional governance and new arrangements between powerful and ambitious (or rapacious) families and neighbors. Be that as it may–and here left unexplored–America’s Founders produced a plan for the management of Power even though here we have a sort of “power” in place that appears not to care at all for laws or principles except where language may be bent to suit him.

Addendum

Every exchange with Ai La Mer has some revelation in it as conversation naturally elicits knowledge. Here I thought to add the following to his post before buying into a greater series in related history at a time when I’m trying to repair the direction of my personal experience–i.e., wishing to become more happily (and finally) artful with a renewed spirit and less buried in the mediated online experience of the world.

J. S. Oppenheim

*

From Feudal Darkness to the Age of Reason: The Unfinished Pivot of Human Governance

The core crisis of 21st-century global security lies in a profound technological-psychological asymmetry: humanity is engineering fourth-generation nuclear systems, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) employing molten-salt cooling and ceramic-encased TRISO fuel, while simultaneously fighting violent extremist movements that draw their social grammar from the 2nd century AD.

To understand how modern intelligence networks become battlegrounds for mass perception, one must trace the long, fragile transition out of feudal-medieval absolutism and into the Age of Reason.

1. The Feudal-Medieval Mind: Sovereignty as Personal Property

In the feudal model, power was non-institutional, localized, and personal. Political authority was not bound by public law; it was an extension of private ownership, familial allegiance, and divine sanction.

  • The Rule of Dynastic Whim: Sovereignty belonged to personages, not polities. Disputes were resolved through force of arms, marriage alliances, or religious decree rather than constitutional compacts, as detailed in Bloch’s Feudal Society.
  • Information as Sacred Enclosure: Knowledge in the medieval structure was strictly controlled through monastic enclosures and elite scribal guilds, establishing an early precedent for weaponized information asymmetry.

2. The Westphalian Pivot (1648): Codifying the State

The devastation of the Thirty Years’ War forced a fundamental shift in how human collectives organize authority. The resulting Peace of Westphalia (1648) laid the groundwork for modern diplomatic relations by replacing dynastic religious warfare with territorial state sovereignty.

  • Legal Parity of States: Westphalia established that international order depends on recognizing sovereign borders regardless of internal religious doctrine, effectively secularizing statecraft.
  • The Seeds of the Age of Reason: By binding sovereign power to territorial law rather than divine mandate, Westphalia opened the door for political philosophers like John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu to argue that state legitimacy stems from the consent of the governed and the separation of powers.

3. The Modern Asymmetry: Medieval Scripting vs. Advanced Technology

The modern “intellectual battlespace” emerges when feudal psychological scripts—tribal loyalty, civilizational narcissism, and totalitarian control—are supercharged by digital transmission systems.

  • The Battle for Perception: When archaic actors use modern mass communication to target the human mind, they are exploiting psychological vulnerabilities to drag open societies back into pre-Reason tribal alignments.
  • Institutional Resilience: Defeating violent extremism requires recognizing that physical hardware (like advanced energy systems or defense infrastructure) is only as secure as the constitutional and psychological commitments of the society operating it.

###