Comparison of US President to European Constitutional King

Key Insight

Understanding the US President's position benefits from comparison to a European constitutional monarch, disregarding superficial symbols of power. The fundamental difference lies in the division of sovereignty: in the United States, executive power is limited and exceptional, reflecting the divided sovereignty between the Union and states, whereas in France, it is unified and extends to everything, mirroring a national government.

Crucially, the French king is part of the sovereign power, as laws require his sanction and he participates in the legislature's formation by appointing members to one chamber and dissolving the other at will. He also shares the right to propose laws and has agents representing his views in the legislature. In stark contrast, the US President is merely the executor of the law, not a part of the sovereign power; his veto cannot prevent a law's existence, he plays no role in legislative body composition, cannot dissolve it, and has no right to initiate legislation or direct access to Congress.

Furthermore, the king's power is hereditary and of longer duration, fostering love and fear, while the President's four-year elective term offers less inherent strength. The President is subject to constant scrutiny, requiring Senate approval for treaties and appointments, and is responsible for his actions. The French king, however, is absolute master in the executive sphere and inviolable. Despite these differences, the underlying guiding power in both nations is public opinion; in America through elections, in France often through revolutions. This suggests France, with its king, may resemble a republic more than the Union, with its president, resembles a monarchy, as public opinion is the ultimate source of law in both.