Federalist 62 Paraphrased
Federalist No. 62 - The Senate Adds Stability paraphrased into modern English
by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
To: The people of New York:
Now that we've discussed how the House of Representatives is set up in the proposed Constitution and addressed whatever concerns warranted a response, I'll tackle the Senate next.
The topics under this subject that I'll cover are 1. The qualifications senators need, 2. How state legislatures will appoint them, 3. The equal representation of each state in the Senate, 4. How many senators there will be and how long their term will be, 5. The authority the Senate will have.
1. The qualifications of a senator differ from a representative in that a senator must be older and must be a U. S. citizen for a longer period of time. A senator must be at least thirty years old, but a representative can be 25. A senator must have been a citizen for at least nine years, but a representative must have been a citizen for only seven years. The reason for this difference is that a senator has a heavier weight of responsibility. His job will require a greater amount of information and more stability of character. A senator should have reached a period of life where he's more likely to have gained additional knowledge and be more settled and mature. Since his job will require him to be involved in negotiations with foreign nations immediately, a man in that position should be completely detached from any biases and habits he might have learned from being born and educated in another country. A nine year period of citizenship seems to be a reasonable amount of time. It doesn't completely eliminate anyone born in a foreign country from being a senator if their character and talents motivate the public to vote for them. On the other hand, anything shorter would be careless and hasty, and could risk creating a weakness that allows foreign governments to influence our federal assembly meetings.
2. It's not necessary to discuss at length how senators will be appointed by State legislatures. Various methods of appointing senators were considered, and this one, which was suggested during the Constitutional Convention, is probably the one the public would prefer. Not only does it encourage the appointment of someone who's qualified, but it also gives the State governments a role in forming the federal government in a way that gives states a bit more authority, and forms a convenient link between states and the federal government.
3. Equal representation of each state in the Senate is a compromise between the two conflicting interests of large states and small states. I doubt much needs to be said about this. A people who are thoroughly blended into a single nation should have a proportionately equal share in the government of that nation, and each district should be equally represented. At the same time, independent and autonomous States of different sizes who are bound together by a simple alliance should also have an equal share in the public assembly meetings. A country like ours is both national [made up of independent states] and federal [centralized government made up of individuals], and will need to be a compound republic, with elements of both national [state] and federal [centralized] government. And that government will therefore need to be built on a mixture of proportional representation [by population] and equal representation [by state]. But it's not necessary to theorize about this part of the proposed Constitution since everyone admits that it's not just a theory, but that it 'has a spirit of goodwill, and shared submission and compromise that are necessary because of the uniqueness of our political circumstances.' A shared government with enough authority to carry out its goals is what the people of America demand, and what America's political circumstances require. A government based on principles that benefit the larger states is not something the smaller states are likely agree to. The only option for the larger states, then, is either the government outlined in the proposed Constitution, or something even more disagreeable. Between those two choices, the sensible decision is to choose the option that's the least unpleasant. Instead of imagining the worst troubles that might happen, it would be better to think of the beneficial results that could make it worth the sacrifice.
In this sense, it's worth mentioning that allowing each State to have an equal vote [in the Senate] is a way to recognize the sovereignty that each State still has, while protecting that sovereignty at the same time. The equality aspect should be as acceptable to the large states as it is to the smaller ones since they are just as anxious to use every possible means to prevent all the States from being consolidated into a single conglomerate republic.
Another advantage of this part of the Senate's structure is that it provides an additional barrier against misguided legislation. No law or decision can be passed unless it’s first approved by a majority of the people [through the Representatives], and then a majority of the States [through the Senate]. Admittedly, this complicated barrier might sometimes be detrimental instead of beneficial, and the protection it provides to the smaller states would seem more logical if they had shared concerns among themselves that the larger states didn't have that were being threatened. But since larger states have more control over supplies, they'll always be able to resist the smaller states' attempts to use that barrier to their advantage. And since excessive law-making seems to be a disease that our governments are prone to fall into, it's possible that this part of the proposed Constitution might be more efficient in practice than one might think.
4. Now let's consider how many senators there will be and how long a term they will serve. If we're going to accurately evaluate these points, we'll need to examine the purposes of having a Senate. In order to determine these, we'll need to look back on the inconveniences a republic encounters when they have no Senate.
First, it's a hindrance especially to republican governments, but also to other governments to a lesser degree, that the men who govern tend to forget the duty they owe to those who voted them into office, and be unfaithful regarding their important trust and responsibility. To alleviate this, a Senate is one of two branches of the legislature. It’s distinct from the other branch and divides power with it. The other branch [the House of Representatives] provides a healthy restraint on the government. It doubles the protection of the people by requiring that two separate branches must agree to cooperate in any schemes to seize power. This way the ambition or corruption of only one branch isn't enough to betray the people. This precaution is based on obvious principles that are well-understood in the United States, so there's no need to explain it. I'll simply comment that the more different the two branches are, the less likely it is that they would both join together for such a sinister scheme. That makes it wise to differentiate them from each other in every way possible that will still enable them to work together in harmony wherever it's appropriate, and with sincere principles of republican government.
Second, the need for a Senate [a second branch] is made plain by the tendency for assemblies made up of many men to yield to sudden impulsive fervor, and to be swayed by divisive leaders into making extreme and destructive decisions. There are countless examples of this in the archives of the United States as well as the history of other countries. But it's so self-evident that I don't need to provide proof. I only need to say that a group that's supposed to help prevent such a thing from happening should be set up to prevent itself from falling into the same temptation. Therefore, the Senate should be a smaller group [than the House of Representatives]. It should also be more constant, and should therefore bear more authority by having a longer term of service.
Third, having a Senate should solve the problem of politicians not being familiar with the purpose and principles of legislation. A group of men who are, for the most part, called away from their own private occupations for a short two-year period, and who have no permanent inclination to devote their two-year term to studying the laws, legislative procedure, and the extensive issues concerning their country will inevitably make all kinds of critical mistakes in performing their legislative duties if they're left to themselves. Clearly many of America's dilemmas can be blamed on the mistakes of our government, and most of these have been caused because of a lack of knowledge rather than a lack of integrity. Our many volumes of legal codes that repeal, clarify, or amend existing laws demonstrate a lack of wisdom. Each session has so many grievances against the preceding session, and there is so much advice encouraging the people to strive for the benefits they could have if they had a well-organized Senate.
A good government involves two things: first, loyalty to government's purpose, which is the happiness of the people, and, second, the knowledge of how to best achieve that purpose. Some governments lack both of these things. Most governments lack the first. I'm not afraid to admit that in American governments, not enough attention has been given to the second [the knowledge of how to best bring about the happiness of the people]. But the proposed Constitution fixes this error. Of special note, the way it provides for the second [the knowledge] increases the security of the people's happiness.
Fourth, the constant turnover of public servants [representatives are re-elected every two years] means that the legislature is always changing, and that's a concern no matter how qualified new Representatives may be. There is a strong need for some kind of stable foundation in the government. Every time there's a new election in the States, half of the Representatives change. With a change of people comes a change of opinions, and a change of opinions means changes in laws. But constant change, even when the new laws are good, isn't consistent with what we know about good sense and long-term success. We see the results of constant change in private life, and it's even more serious in national matters.
If I were to write about all the harms of a constantly changing government, I'd have to write an entire book. So I'll mention just a few of them, and it will be evident that those lead to a host of other negative results.
First of all, other nations lose respect and confidence in a constantly changing nation, and all the benefits that come from national integrity are lost. If a private person was always changing his plans, or went about his life with no plan at all, sensible people would perceive him as someone who was likely to come to a quick ruin because of his own instability and carelessness. His more kind-hearted neighbors might feel sorry for him, but even they would not want to have any business connections with him. He would be taken advantage of by his more dishonest neighbors, who might see an opportunity to make their fortunes at his expense. Nations relate to each other like neighbors, except that, sadly, nations don't have the same kind of compassion as a kind-hearted neighbor. They have fewer qualms about taking advantage of the misjudgment of other countries. So any nation who displays a lack of wisdom and stability can count on being taken advantage of in any situation where their more shrewd neighbors can devise a strategy. Unfortunately, America is a good example of this. None of her neighbors respects her, her enemies mock her, and she's victimized by every nation that can speculate on her constantly fluctuating policies and disgraceful political circumstances.
Domestically, the results of a constantly changing government are even more disastrous. The very blessing of liberty is poisoned. It makes no difference for the people that their laws are written by the men they choose if there are so many laws that nobody can read them, or if the laws are so muddled that nobody can understand them. If laws are repealed or edited before they go into effect, or undergo multiple changes, how can a person who reads the law today guess what the law will say tomorrow? Law is defined as 'a rule of action,' but how can anything be a rule when nobody knows what it is, and it seems so temporary?
Another result of instability in the government is that it gives an unfair advantage to the shrewd, ambitious, and wealthy few over the hard-working but unaware mass of people. Every new law regarding business or profits that affects the value of different kinds of property presents an opportunity to those who are watching for changes and realize a new law's potential. Yet their unfair profit is not the result of their own hard labor, but the labor and diligence of a large percentage of their fellow citizens. In this situation, it's accurate to say that laws are made for the few, not for the many.
There's another way that an unstable government causes harm. The people's lack of confidence in their government makes them hesitate to start any useful enterprise, since the success and profit from their project may depend on things staying the same in government. What sensible merchant is going to risk his money in any new business plan when he knows that his plans may become prohibited by law before he can even put them into motion? What farmer or manufacturer is going to expend extra effort to grow a new crop or open a new plant when he knows that all his preparation and loans might be lost because a new government changes all the laws? Thus, no ambitious improvements or commendable projects can proceed if they require the support of consistent national policies.
But the worst result of all is that it steals loyalty and honor from the hearts of the people when they see how their political system has so many flaws and frustrates so many of their promising hopes. A government, just like an individual, won't be respected unless it's respectable. And it can't truly be respectable unless it has a certain amount of order and dependability.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, March, 2021
Comments
Post a Comment