After
the examination of the House of Representatives, Madison now turns to
the Senate by listing the areas out of which four are to
be examined:
1)
The qualifications of Senators: The qualifications
for senators consist of a more advanced age, 30 years-old, and longer
period of citizenship, 9 years. This is due to the nature of the
senatorial trust, which
requires a greater extent of information and character.
2)
Their appointment by the State legislatures: It should be
unnecessary to explain why senators are to be chosen by state
legislatures. It favors a selection of competent senators and gives the
states an agency in the formation of the federal government
and secures the authority of the state governments.
3)
The equality of representation in the senate:
The equal representation in the senate is obviously a compromise
between the desires of the large and small states. Here Madison makes
the distinction between the House, which represents the people bound
together in one nation and the senate, which represents
the individual states. The goal, Madison explains, is to make sure that
no law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence first of
the majority of the people and then of a majority of the states.
4)
The number of Senators and the term for which they are able to serve:
Here, Madison offers at least four justifiable reasons: a) Two
different bodies would protect the people from the schemes of usurpation
where the corruption of one would be sufficient;
b) The senate guards against a single or numerous body from being
swayed by passion of the moment by possessing great firmness and holding
its authority by a tenure of considerable duration; c) A good
government implies two things: fidelity to the object of
government, which is the happiness of the people, and a knowledge of
the means by which that object can be best attained. Although most
governments fail to provide either or both of these requirements, the
proposed constitution solves the second which increases
the security for the first; d) There is a need for stability in one
body of government, without which no respect and confidence will be
received from other nations.
The ability of the subordinate states to appoint their senators was a key method of ensuring a proper relationship between the two levels of government. Of course, this was removed in 1913 with passage of the 17th Amendment. Today, states are often weighed down with costly unfunded mandates from Washington with little to no program funding. As a result, states are forced to cut existing state programs or raise taxes. Also, 49 of the 50 states have a constitutional requirement to have annual balanced budges (something that does not exist at the fed level, and this further puts a burden on the states. My question to the 20th Century progressives is how does this current arrangement positively affect democracy and does it simply shift the crux of power from one institution (state officials appointing senators) to another (special interests funding popularly elected senate campaigns)?
ReplyDelete