Among a primitive people, not yet united under any strong central government, and recognizing the right of local self-government as existing in small divisions or bodies, limited and temporary authority only is conceded to any one official; there is but little concentrated executive power. Such a people were the Anglo-Saxons during the early period of their existence in England. But the necessary development of a stronger central government will be effected by the assertion of greater power on the part of some leader or ruler, and before the Norman Conquest the office of king had been fully established in England, though the king was not looked upon by any means as the source of all power or as entitled to exercise absolute power. After the Norman Conquest, and especially after the superiority of the king over the nobility had been established, the monarch, although never recognized as the repository of absolute authority, was regarded as ruling by divine right, and as the source of all the authority exercised by the general government. He made the laws, after consultation with his duly appointed counsellors, and even after Parliament became fully established, he framed statutes for the consideration of Parliament. In course of time the importance and influence of Parliament had so far increased, especially by the persistent assertion on its part of the right to regulate the levying of taxes and the expenditure of money, that the power to legislate was fully established as a Parliamentary power, and Parliament (king, lords, and commons) became the legislative branch of the government, whilst the monarch was recognized as the executive branch.

Until 1715 the king still participated with Parliament in the making of laws inasmuch as he could veto any bill sent up to him by the two Houses; and still no act of Parliament becomes a statute until it has received the royal approval. In the relations between the government of England and foreign governments, he was the sole representative of the nation. The supreme military authority was in him, and he exercised the function of enforcing the laws. In course of time the judicial authority was separated, to a great extent, from the person of the sovereign, but it was exercised by judges appointed by the sovereign, and the judicial branch of the government was recognized as deriving its authority from the executive.

This was the substantial framework of the English constitution at the time the colonies asserted their independence, and the state constitutions, as has already been explained (supra, ch. iv), recognize three co-ordinate departments of government, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. By these constitutions, and in general by all state constitutions subsequently framed, the governor as the head of the executive department is the head of the state. He is the chief administrative officer charged in a general way with the enforcement of the laws; he is at the head of the military establishment of the state; and he has the pardoning power. He has also some functions to perform in connection with the legislative department. By the constitution of the United States, which was framed in general analogy to the state constitutions then existing, the president is the head of the military and naval forces; he represents the national government in its relation with foreign governments; he participates in legislation by exercising the power of approving or vetoing bills passed by Congress; and he is vested with the power of pardon (Art. II).

It appears, therefore, that the chief executive, whether of a state or of the federal government, exercises a variety of functions, which must be separately considered.