Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
22. That explains their election by the state legislature in the original,
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 09:26 PM
Oct 2013

but as Madison makes clear in Federalist 62, there were other reasons to have a second body:

First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.

Second. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.


In other words, because a single body subject to election once every two years could wind up with a bunch of total demagogues, and some check would be needed on their propensity to do stupid things.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

They could not have imagined a world full of idiots listening to idiots all day on the radio and TV. redstatebluegirl Oct 2013 #1
indeed... ProdigalJunkMail Oct 2013 #3
Who could have forseen Turbineguy Oct 2013 #2
They thought morons would get voted out of office by their constituents. Ikonoklast Oct 2013 #9
Actually they did foresee a buncha stupes getting elected, Benton D Struckcheon Oct 2013 #4
Stupes isn't why there are two houses jmowreader Oct 2013 #16
That explains their election by the state legislature in the original, Benton D Struckcheon Oct 2013 #22
Any set of rules can be fucked with Phlem Oct 2013 #5
Dumb post ... Auggie Oct 2013 #6
Maybe they're only three-fifths as smart as we thought... ( n/t ) Make7 Oct 2013 #7
I'm not sure I quite understand... FurSure Oct 2013 #25
LOL! Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2013 #31
LOL! FurSure Oct 2013 #35
Their world was alot smaller Marrah_G Oct 2013 #8
It's a political game Lifelong Dem Oct 2013 #10
That cartoon was published 10/2. baldguy Oct 2013 #20
I'm sure they did the best they felt they could. n/t eShirl Oct 2013 #11
The founding fathers were concerned about kings and setting up an executive branch Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #12
I believe that is the job of the electorate. BlueToTheBone Oct 2013 #13
What you are really demanding: GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #14
Not at all jmowreader Oct 2013 #18
Sounds reasonable. One question. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #32
I want the Tea Party members removed because they're destroying the country! jmowreader Oct 2013 #36
You are wanting anybody that disagrees with you politically to be removed. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #37
They expected the country to be sensible enough Revanchist Oct 2013 #15
No. They had not way to know what would happen treestar Oct 2013 #17
Yeah, why weren't they omniscient? bhikkhu Oct 2013 #19
They had pitchforks, tar and feathers, etc., back then. gulliver Oct 2013 #21
But they did dare to Gerrymander back then. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #34
Actually they were prescient enough to warn against Factions nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #23
No, after such a struggle to establish this nation bluedeathray Oct 2013 #24
Their mistake was in not legislating the powers of parties riqster Oct 2013 #26
We didn't get where we are overnight. meanit Oct 2013 #27
Of course they didn't plan for everything, they went with the best they could come up with NuclearDem Oct 2013 #28
Yep. The Constitution is a failure, and we need to replace it with a parliamentary system geek tragedy Oct 2013 #29
The Houses were to make their own rules zipplewrath Oct 2013 #30
They were, but they never expected petulant children to be elected to Congress. Myrina Oct 2013 #33
I think the FF designed a system for the elite. Not for the people. No third party? Blame them. DevonRex Oct 2013 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»You thinkin' maybe the Fo...»Reply #22