The power to make treaties was confided to the president originally because it had been the custom for the executive to possess the treaty-making power.  But it is defensible on other grounds.  Some treaties need to be considered secretly.  This could hardly be done if congress were the treaty-making power.  But the president and the cabinet can consider the matter in secret.  Then promptness is sometimes needed, as in case of a treaty to close a war.  Promptness may prevent useless loss of life.  If congress had to be summoned, valuable time would be taken.  As two-thirds of the senators present must agree to the provisions of the treaty, the president cannot misuse the power granted in this provision.

When the treaty necessitates the raising of money, the house of representatives is generally consulted, also.  In fact, if the house opposed such a treaty it is questionable whether it could be carried out.  In each of the three great purchases of territory the president consulted congress before making the purchase.

[2] The nominations are made in writing, and the senate may either confirm or reject the nominees.  The person or persons confirmed are then appointed by the president.  When a nominee is rejected, the president generally sends in a new nomination.

This mode of appointment is thus defended by Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist: “The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the president singly and absolutely.  The censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the senate; aggravated by the consideration of their having counteracted the good intentions of the executive.  If an ill appointment should be made, the executive for nominating, and the senate for approving would participate, though in different degrees, in the opprobrium and disgrace.”

It will be noted in this connection that, while in the state most of the officers are elected, in the general government all officers except the president and vice-president are appointed.

In Washington’s administration the question was raised, can the president remove officers without the consent of congress?  And it was decided that the president can remove all officers whom he can appoint.  Judges, who hold for life, are of course excepted.  During Johnson’s administration, the power of the president in this direction was declared to be exactly equal to his power of appointment,—­that is, if the consent of the senate be necessary to an appointment, it would also be necessary for removal.  But afterwards the law was amended, so that now the president may suspend an officer until the end of the next session of the senate, and make a temporary appointment.  If the senate does not at its next session confirm the nomination to fill the vacancy, the old officer is re-instated.  But if the president is determined to carry his point, he may immediately suspend the old officer again, and re-appoint the rejected candidate, and continue so to do.