Why one president rather than an executive council? Hamilton believed divided executive authority could produce delay, internal rivalry, and uncertainty about who had made a decision. Members of a council could blame one another when a policy failed. A single president makes responsibility more visible. Citizens can identify the officer who directed the administration and use elections, public criticism, investigation, or impeachment as the constitutional situation permits. Unity therefore supports accountability as well as speed: it is easier to judge one identifiable decision maker than to untangle responsibility among several equal executives.

The argument contains an important limit. No. 70 defends vigor within a constitutional office, not a president free from law. Congress controls appropriations, enacts statutes, conducts oversight, and may impeach. The Senate participates in appointments and treaties, courts decide proper cases, and elections provide political accountability. A single executive may act more decisively, which makes constitutional checks more important rather than less. Hamilton's defense of unity also does not decide every modern controversy over executive orders, emergency power, war powers, or removal. Those questions require constitutional text, statutes, and precedent.

On an exam, look for the combination of unity, energy, and identifiable responsibility. A stem about an executive council concealing blame, slow crisis response caused by divided command, or the public's ability to hold one officer responsible points toward No. 70. Do not confuse this mechanism with No. 51's checks among branches, No. 10's control of faction through a large republic, or No. 78's protection of judicial independence. One president can be checked by other institutions; unity in the executive and checks on the executive are compatible parts of the same constitutional design.

Video lesson: The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8