With this quote, Madison describes the Founders’ intent to design a government which could self-balance and obstruct the majority’s monetary impulses. Specifically, the Founders believed that factions, groups of people united by common interests and passions, would quickly assemble and attempt to impose their will on the nation out of self-interest. Consequently, the Founders fashioned the Constitution with in-built roadblocks, separation of powers along with checks and balances, to pit factions against one another to slow down the government’s legislative abilities. For instance, the Founders created two houses within Congress to cause factions from multiple constituencies to check one another. As stipulated by the Constitution, small districts …show more content…
As with Madison, Senator Morris believed that the public could not be trusted in making law for the country’s whole well-being even if the government’s legitimacy flowed from the people. Hence, the Founders established the Senate to represent state governments’ interests and temper the legislative process. They achieved the former goal by establishing equal state representation, six year terms, and senators’ selection by state legislatures. Demonstrating the Senate’s responsibility to temper the legislative process, the Constitution grants it several exclusive powers, including jurisdiction over approving treaties. If this power was also granted to the House, the Founders feared that majorities would quickly overturn treaties with the quick ebb and flow of popular opinion. By distancing the Senate from the people, the Founders hoped the Senate would ensure the United States’s diplomatic consistency. Likewise, the Founders staggered senators’ selection, so the states only appointed one-third every two years. In theory, this selection timeline would offer continuity in legislative governance, while frequent elections would elect a new House every two years. Ultimately, the Senate’s existence ensures that lawmaking necessitates a near national consensus rather than a momentary majority because of its unrepresentative nature according to Dennis Hale and Marc Landy. Because smaller …show more content…
Specifically, Levitsky and Ziblatt refer to democracy's guardrails as its norms, namely mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance. The former relates to the recognition that your political opponents have a right to rule as long as they follow constitutional rules. Institutional forbearance refers to restraint in using legal measures to block political rivals' right to govern. When political groups slowly violate these norms by deploying legal measures, Levitsky and Ziblatt propose that political actors become more willing to reject democratic institutions altogether. In the U.S., both mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance seem deeply at risk. Contemporary politicians are more likely than their predecessors to use legal checks against their opponents. During the Obama Administration, Senate Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s final Supreme Court nominee and used the filibuster to kill Democratic legislation in unprecedented fashion according to How Democracies Die. Further, the far-right has increasingly held non-violent armed demonstrations. According to the Journal of Democracy, these demonstrations often intimidate political opponents away from voting. Although these demonstrations are legal, they illustrate how citizens are increasingly willing to use legal means to circumscribe their
The Senate is also important because each Senator serves six years in office making it difficult for them to “yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions” and allows them to gain experience and make minimal to no errors (pg. 337). Federalist Paper Sixty-Three emphasizes that having Senators serve six years allows them to be more responsible of the decisions they take while in office. James Madison wrote “It is evident that an assembly elected for so short a term as to be unable to provide more than one or two links in a chain of measures” (pg. 338).
Vonelle Robertson Professor Currie American National Government April 15th, 2015 Essay: Should the 17thAmendment be repealed? While citizens of each state did not directly vote in the senators of their respective states legislatures chose the senators based on the law that was adopted in the constitution in 1788.The 17th amendment came about because of the state legislature being deadlocked over the election of United States Senators. This left numerous senate vacancies lasting as long as months or even years. But this was not the first attempt to amend the constitution to elect senators by popular vote. It was first introduced in the US House of Representatives in 1826 but the amendment did not have favorable support until the late 19th century
The house of representatives made it based on the population which provided the power on the large states but the senate made
Taylor Brown POLS 4130 – Ross Final Exam 1. Sanford Levinson argues that Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 (“The Senate of the Unites States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote”) should appall most Americans and lead them to support a new constitutional convention. Using Madison’s Notes and the Federalist Papers explain A) the purposes of the Senate, B) how the institutional design (number of representatives, term length, original mode of selection, enumerated powers, etc) accomplishes those purposes, and C) if the Senate’s purposes and institutional design are still defensible.
The authors of the Constitution created a balance between federal and state government by creating federalism or a division of powers with checks and balances while maintaining the separation of powers. That being said, the Virginia Plan of having every state hold a two-house legislature was debated against the New Jersey Plan that entailed a single house Congress (Foner, 2014). The end result was a two-house Congress in which each state could then have two senate members that are required to serve for one term of six years and a House of Representatives in which member were elected directly by the people every two years. This system made sure that each population was represented equally despite one state being larger than the other (Foner,
“The Constitution assigns the Senate and House equal power for declaring war, maintaining the armed forces, assessing taxes, borrowing money, minting currency, regulating commerce, and making all laws “necessary and proper” for the operation of the government. However, the Senate holds exclusive authority to advise and consent on treaties and presidential nominations.”
The structure of Congress was decided so that “Nine of thirteen states had to agree before a law could pass. If anyone wanted to amend the Articles to make the government more efficient, that took unanimous support. Many tried but weren’t able to secure all thirteen votes.” (iCivics packet). These harsh laws made it hard to pass any laws or make amendments to the Articles because it was near impossible to grasp the vast majority of votes.
After the countless debates, the Great Compromise was what the convention would come into agreement with representation by population in the House of Representatives “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative. ”(add footnote) The smaller states were pleased with equal representation in the Senate “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senates from each state and each Senator shall have one vote.”(add
Madison addresses the concerns of the Federalist by first defining factions. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” (Madison). Then he suggests that the only two ways to deal with the problem are to either eliminate factions by removing their causes or limit their impact by controlling their effects. From this portion of the essay, my understanding is that since people have their own self-interests and these self-interests clash with others, the government needs to be able to pass laws for the common good of all instead of any one specific group.
Madison thought that the government needed a better form of money income for the government, so he had created the system of checks and balances. Checks and balances are designed so that the power in the government is separated between different branches specifically designed so that one branch does not have too much power over other forms of government and the people. He had made it so that the constitution specifically states what powers each branch has, this way the branches are unable to take too much power and overcome the government. Having the checks and balances gives each department their own field so that others don’t impinge on their decisions creating conflict in the governmental
In the case of taxation, the more powerful of the two parties would have the opportunity to impose higher taxes on the minority, thus, saving themselves money. Madison firmly believed that the constitution had the ability to solve the problems created by factions. Madison envisioned a large republic that would make it difficult for corrupt candidates to get elected. Madison expressed this by stating, In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
However, trust in a state elected senate eroded over time. Because of legislative deadlock, instances of corruption in the election of senators, and a slow move to populism, the public eventually began to resent the method in which senators were chosen. Although the constitution stated in Article I Section 3 that senators were to be chosen by state legislatures, it was unclear about how that selection should happen. In the late 19th century, states consistently failed to elect their senators because of this grey area. This was the result of political parties dividing state legislatures to the point where they could not agree on a singular candidate and between 1885 and 1900 alone the states of West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, Washington and
Madison’s essay reflects the fear many had of a tyrannical government and the desire to ensure that the country didn’t revert back to that which it had just escaped from. He notes the necessity to prevent any one faction or group from gaining too much power and oppressing those in the minority. The separation of powers was set in place to ensure that this could not happen. Even if one group decides they want something, the other two have the equal authority to prevent it should it not represent the country as a whole.
Cheyenne Higbie Kelli Brown Social Studies 3rd hour 03 October 2016 The United States Constitution When the Founding Fathers of the United States realized that The Articles of Confederation was weak, they soon decided to form a new Constitution. Several different ideas were proposed by people from different states. These plans were then evaluated by the committee and voted on. One of the biggest debates throughout the process of revising the Articles of Confederation was representation in the Senate for all of these states.
Madison brings up that it isn’t possible to divide power absolutely equally and “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” (2). And so, the legislative branch will be divided even more to try and combat the unbalance of power. Madison thought this system was a good method because he believed that it was part of human nature to have conflicting ideas and wants, and so each branch could keep the others in line and therefor no one power is above the others. Furthermore, Madison believes a bigger government with multiple branches is better because then it becomes difficult for one