I came across this online.
It outlines the conflict regarding the wisdom of the constitutional design of the presidency. Not everyone was in favor of it,
- Click here for the article.
During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, Antifederalists charged that the President would become a king—in fact, he would be the worst kind of a king–an elected one. Cabals and intrigues would surely develop over the reelection of the incumbent. Some even charged that the orderly transfer of power from a defeated incumbent was too much to expect, especially since the President had complete control over the country’s military and the states’ militia when called up for federal service. Antifederalists also charged that the Constitution was defective in that it violated the commonly held belief that the three branches of government ought to be separate.
The mixture of power and responsibility over appointments to office and treaty-making bothered many Americans. Would the Senate really exercise authority in the appointment of officers or would the President’s power to nominate be tantamount to the power to appoint? Who would be responsible if corrupt individuals were appointed—the President, the Senate or both? And could it be expected that Senators who had confirmed officeholders would convict those same individuals on impeachment?