Federalist No. 52 and Federalist No. 53 begin an exploration of the individual branches of government as defined in the Constitution by considering the purpose, composition, and structure of the House of Representatives. While they were trying to rectify the weaknesses of existing legislative bodies, sometimes it can feel like we still live under a system where:
The only dependence of the representatives on the people consisted in the right of the latter to supply occasional vacancies by the election of new members
The final paragraph of Federalist 52 contained this sentence:
It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted.
This got me thinking because that would suggest that the Senate has the less power than the House of Representatives. I had always believed that the Senate had comparatively more power than the House. I’d be curious to know what others think about their relative power.
Federalist 53 makes passing reference to:
a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government.
I stopped for a minute to think about that. With the way our Constitution today is almost invisible within the laws passed by Congress I almost believed that our government was busy changing the Constitution. I soon realized that I was wrong. They may ignore the Constitution, but they cannot change it. In order to change the Constitution both houses of Congress must pass a bill for the change by supermajorities, but even if they were unanimous the change cannot go into effect until majorities in three quarters of the states also ratify the amending bill. It’s no wonder they ignore the Constitution so much, they can’t change their minds about it with every administration if they were to try making a change to our legal foundation. And yet our Congress acts very much like the British Parliament that they were designed to improve upon:
Even in Great Britain, where the principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and where we hear most of the rights of the Constitution, it is maintained that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and uncontrollable, as well with regard to the Constitution, as the ordinary objects of legislative provision. They have accordingly, in several instances, actually changed, by legislative acts, some of the most fundamental articles of the government.
I particularly liked the description of the challenging task that representatives in the federal government would have to undertake. Even before we allowed the federal government to reach into every aspect of our daily lives the citizens were supposed to select someone who could tackle this:
The laws are so far from being uniform, that they vary in every State; whilst the public affairs of the Union are spread throughout a very extensive region, and are extremely diversified . . . A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations.
Finally there is another instance of the federalist authors making an assumption that turns out to be less than accurate:
A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages.
Sadly, it is not a few who become members of long standing by frequent reelections. Instead it has become almost universal, and they almost universally avail themselves of the advantages of their office.
