The official announcement of Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation shifted the focus from the overseas war to the constitutionality of the document and its implications for executive powers. It was directly criticized by Thomas Jefferson and his Republican faction of Congress with claims that it was a direct violation of the Constitution because of its encroachment on the Senate’s right to be consulted on foreign policies, as well as the consideration that this proclamation could in effect draw the nation into a war without the consent of Congress. (Catanzaro 1992, 442) Alexander Hamilton and his Federalists saw the importance of the president and his role in the sphere of foreign affairs. In was in fact not the necessary importance of neutrality, but Hamilton’s desire to use it to broaden executive …show more content…
When the Constitutional Convention brought forth a new Constitution outlining the process of how the United States would be run, they left the precise manner in which legislative and executive authorities would share their divided responsibilities in the conduct of foreign affairs as largely undefined; furthermore, the relation between the executive power and republican government was not fully thought through or established at the time. (Frisch 2007, vii) In fact, the American Constitution was actually left uncompleted in 1789, for it required additional making or doing. It was perhaps the factor of ratifying a constitution of unfinished character that could be one of its most remarkable features. It is a result of this factor that established the constitution to be neither endlessly flexible or devoid of essential meaning and allows for men such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and contemporary political figures to remodel the institutions of government in order to bring about a closer interpretation of a government that they viewed as