How is Hamilton's 18th century view of the presidency both similar and different from our perception of the presidency in the 21st century?

Hamilton's 18th century view of the presidency is similar to our perception of the presidency in the 21st century because:

His view is different because:

According to the given question, we are asked to show how Hamilton's 18th century view of the presidency is similar and different from our perception of the presidency in the 21st century.

As a result of this, we can see that Alexander Hamilton was an Federalist who believed that the federal government was to be strong and well equipped to handle the needs of governing and the people.

There was a major difference because although he wanted a strong government, he wa too party affiliated and tended to favor his political party which is different today as the President has to cater for the needs of everybody.

Read more here:

link

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although there are no options attached, we can answer the following.

Hamilton's 18th-century view of the presidency was different from our perception of the presidency in the 21st century in the vision of Federalist Alexander Hamilton was to have a strong central government for the United States and that is what he promoted when he wrote the Federalists Papers with John Jay and James Madison.

The First United States President George Washington supported that vision, although he was smart enough to include different backgrounds and points of view in his cabinet, as was the case of Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State. He was an Antifederalists.

However, the role of the United States President nowadays is to be a good leader but the one who also is able and open to listen to the citizen's necessities. He has to represent the interests of all Americans, it doesn't matter their political party affiliation.

the foundation of greek city-states: following the fall of the mycenaean civilization in the 10th century bc, the area surrounding the empire went through its own mini dark ages. answer and explanation

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is