The Federalist Papers: Articles 62, 63, and 69, Essay Example

The Federalist refers to a collection of eighty five essays and articles penned by James MAdison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay that actively promoted the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In Article sixty two, Madison explains in depth about the Senate, what qualifications senators must have, the methodology for selection of senators, the numbers of senators and terms, and equal representation in the Senate. Senators, unlike delegates who belong to the House of Representatives, must be at least 35 years of age and have been U.S. citizens for at least ten years. The U.S. Constitution states that the Senate shall be comprised of two senators from each state regardless of population density and size of the state. Equal representation evident in the Senate represents a compromise between the various interests among small and large states. While in the House of Representatives the principle of proportional representation was practiced, the Senate touted equal presentation in order to protect the sovereignty of every state so that the federal government never attempts to abolish governments at the state level. The Senate was created not only to foment stability in the U.S. government, it also curtailed the tendency of the House of Representatives to pass a large volume of laws unnecessarily that favor the wealthy and can potentially produce chaos. Ultimately, Madison underscores how the government delineated in the Constitution is structured to prevent any defects in the government that threatens to blunt the progress of society, thereby rendering a stable society at-large. Stability and good public policies are of paramount importance for a well-functioning government, which manifests in this essay. Madison steadfastly defends the implementation of a bicameral Congress on the premise that the Senate would be able to block any undesired policies or acts passed by the House of Representatives. Members of the House could not always be trusted because they have shorter terms in office, unlike Senators who serve 6-year terms. As such, Madison takes into consideration instability in the legislative branch in this particular essay.

In article 63, Madison further expounds on the utility of a bicameral Congress and the Senate in order to enhance the national character of the United States. He opines about the importance of foreign countries having positive views of the United States, and the Senate was at the fulcrum of the United States’ overall image to the rest of the world. The Senate thus had to be a relatively smaller legislative body that was not constantly in flux in order for public opinion to dictate the decisions made by representatives and thus foment public trust. The Senate provides a corrective for the sixth defect Madison refers to as the “want of responsibility in the government” to the American public because Senate tenure is quite long. Being in power for a protracted period of time foments a responsibility in members of the Senate for the decisions rendered. Madison argues that the Senate not only represents the people but also provides Americans with the protection need from their own biases, prejudices, and pernicious ideas. The Senate represents a fusion of the ideal of liberty and stability expected in a well-functioning government, which is why senators are not elected for life. They need remain immune from the whims of common people while also representing them effectively. Madison ultimately rebuts the claim that six-year terms are too long and will ultimately lead to tyranny by contending that the Senate would only be corrupt if and only if it corrupted itself, the House of Representatives, the American people, and state legislatures. Six years is not ample time for such corruption on a macro scale to germinate and spread. Madison further states that critics should analyze state constitutions in which the Senate plays a prominent role, yet the states have yet to be corrupted. Britain’s House of Lords is the best example that validates its claims, as it is a hereditary assembly that has been used for a long period of time yet has yet to corrupt Britain. A bicameral congress is necessary in order to fulfill its governmental function to support the American people themselves.

Finally, article 69, penned by Alexander Hamilton, refutes claims that the president as discussed in the United States would function as an “elective monarch,” a claim made time and again by the anti-federalists who were against the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hamilton argues that the president is elected by the American people vis-a-vis the electoral college, while the British monarch inherits his throne. The president does not have total control over the laws passed, as he or she only can veto laws passed and amended by Congress rendered unconstitutional. Both the king of England and the president serve as the commander-and-chief of their respective nations, although the king retains the power to build up and maintain armies. In the United States, the legislature is charged with that power, not the president. The American president can only sign treaties with other countries if the Senate approves of them. Moreover, the president can only appoint government officers if Senate approves of the appointment, unlike the British monarch who cant appoint officers and grant titles without approval of any legislature. The Constitution curtails the power of the president immensely, especially with regards to currency and commerce, rather than allowing the president to act as an arbiter of currency and commerce. In many ways, the president retains less power over his or her constituents than state governors do. Hamilton thus cogently structures his contention around a juxtaposition between the presidency as outlined in the Constitution and the British king and state governors. He refutes the claim that the American president would have commensurate powers with the British monarch. By bringing state governors into this article, Hamilton makes his defense of the constitution more pertinent to American people.