Hamilton similarly anticipates and refutes the counterargument that more opinions in government lead to better decision-making.    In rejecting this view, Hamilton writes that a plural executive would actually “conceal faults and destroy responsibility”  and be a "clog" to the system.   He argues in Federalist No. 70 that a plural executive leads to a lack of accountability because there is no single person to blame for misconduct.   Furthermore, decision making becomes difficult because a council may propose an agenda contrary to that of the executive.< Hamilton reminds the public that in times of warfare especially, the executive must not be slowed down by deliberation and disagreements.     Finally, he reminds America that a unitary executive structure promotes energy in the executive and that "duration" of the presidential term gives the executive a strong incentive to make policy in conformity with public opinion.    The executive will be held accountable to his constituents and act with "due dependence” and “due responsibility.”  He claims that the two will foster liberty and “safety in the republican sense.”      
History of the organic law of this country conclusively shows beyond any doubt that the regulation of commerce was nothing more, and nothing less, then the act of imposing a tax on articles of import for the sole purpose of restricting or prohibiting their introduction in order to protect or promote local manufactures. Moreover, this was the custom and practice of all nations in regulating commerce with other nations or parts of a nation. Extending police powers over commercial activities was never assertive as belonging to any authority to regulate commerce commerce with other nations or, between parts of a nation, but instead through territorial sovereignty (a power withheld from the central government in exercising within States).