The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 62:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

After looking into the structure of the House of Representatives, we discussed some of the complaints against it. Now, let’s look at the Senate.

This government member can be thought of in terms of five different topics: 1. The qualifications for senators; 2. How they are chosen by state legislatures; 3. The equal representation of senators; 4. How many senators there are and how long they serve; and 5. The powers given to the senate.

1. Senators have higher qualifications than representatives. To be a senator, you must be at least 30 years old and a citizen for 9 years. Representatives must be at least 25 years old and a citizen for 7 years. The reason for these distinctions is that the job of a senator requires more knowledge and a longer time of citizenship. Senators have to do business with foreign nations, so it is important that they have been citizens for a long time and have been able to shed any foreign habits. Nine years is the perfect amount of time for someone to be a citizen before becoming a senator. This prevents adopted citizens from having too much influence on the government.

2. It is not necessary to talk a lot about the selection of senators by state legislatures. Out of all the different ways this branch of government could have been set up, the plan proposed by the convention is probably the one most people like. It has two great benefits: it allows for a selective choice and it gives state governments a role in the creation of the federal government, which will ensure that the state governments still have authority and will help to create a connection between the two systems.

3. Equality of representation in the Senate is something that doesn’t need much talking about. It’s a result of compromise between the bigger and smaller states, and it’s a mix of proportional and equal representation. This was done because of the special situation the US is in, and it was necessary for the different states to show each other respect. America needs a government that can handle its responsibilities, and the bigger states don’t have a better option than what’s proposed. It’s better to accept the compromise than to worry about the possible problems it might cause.

It’s important to recognize that each state has the same voting rights, which is part of the constitution. This is a way to make sure that each state still has some power. This should be seen as a good thing by both the small and large states, as it stops them from joining together to form one big republic.

An advantage of this part of the Constitution is that it makes it harder to pass laws. It requires the agreement of a majority of the people and then the agreement of a majority of the states. This check on legislation can be bad as well as good. Some people think it gives the smaller states an unfair advantage. But usually the bigger states can control the supplies, so it might be useful in practice even if it looks strange.

4. The number of senators and how long they serve must be decided. To make an educated opinion on these topics, it is important to look at the reasons for having a senate. To understand this, it is necessary to look over the negatives that a republic would experience without such an organization.

First. It’s bad for a republican government, and even worse for other types of governments, when the people in charge forget about their duties to the citizens and become untrustworthy. To protect against this, having two separate branches of the legislature—a senate and a first branch—is very helpful. This way, if someone wants to do something bad, then two groups have to agree to it, instead of just one. This is a well-known idea in the US, so there’s no need to explain it more. It’s important to make sure the two branches are different from each other and work together when it’s important, while still staying true to the principles of a republican government.

Second. The need for a senate is obvious. All single and large groups can be easily influenced by strong emotions and be tricked by powerful leaders into making bad decisions. There are many examples of this. A point that no one will disagree with is that the body correcting this should be smaller and more stable. It should also have a long-term hold on its power.

Third. A defect that needs to be taken care of by the Senate is a lack of knowledge about the objects and laws of legislation. It’s not possible for a group of people, mostly from private lives, appointed for a short time and without a permanent reason to study the laws and country’s interests, to make good decisions in their legislative work. It’s fair to say that many of the problems in America can be blamed on mistakes made by our governments, which come from the minds and not the hearts of the people in charge. All the laws that need to be changed, explained, or amended are evidence of bad judgment and are a reminder to the people of the value of help from a properly organized Senate.

A good government is important because it is responsible for the happiness of the people. Sadly, many governments are not able to do this well. The American government is different because the Constitution looks out for the people’s best interests in a way that ensures the government is doing what it is supposed to.

Fourth. The frequent changes in public offices, caused by new members coming in, shows us how important it is to have some solid institution in the government. Every time there is an election in the states, half of the representatives are changed. This change in people means a change in thoughts and opinions, which in turn leads to a change in plans. But it’s not wise to keep changing plans, even when they’re good, because it’s unlikely to be successful. This is true in our personal lives, but it’s even more important when we’re talking about a nation.

To observe the effects of a changing government would fill a book. I will mention just a few, but each one can lead to many more.

At first, not having respect or trust from other nations causes problems. People who don’t have a plan and are always changing their mind are seen as foolish. Others will not want to be associated with them and will take advantage of them. Nations are like people in this way and those that are not wise and don’t have a steady plan will lose out to nations that have a better plan. America is a perfect example of this. People don’t respect America, they make fun of it, and other countries take advantage of it because America’s plans are always changing.

The internal effects of a changeable policy are very bad. It harms our freedom. It won’t help the people if the laws are too many to read, too confusing to understand, or changing so often that no one knows what the law is. Law is supposed to be a guide, but it can’t be if people don’t know it or it keeps changing.

Public instability can give people with money, knowledge, and ambition an unfair advantage over the average person. Every new law that changes the value of property gives those who know how to take advantage of it a type of ‘harvest’ that was created by the work of other people. In this way, it can be said that laws are made not for most people, but for the few.

From another perspective, a lack of stability in government can cause a lot of harm. People lose confidence in the government, so they don’t want to take risks in new business ventures. Farmers and manufacturers also hesitate to invest in projects that might be made illegal by an unpredictable government. In short, it’s hard to make progress if the government is constantly changing.

The worst thing about this situation is that people don’t have faith in the political system. It’s too flawed and unreliable for people to have confidence in it. This means that no one will respect a government if it isn’t respectable. To be respected, it must have some degree of order and stability.

The Federalist 63:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The fifth factor, is that is important for a country to have a senate in order to have a good reputation with other nations. Without a reliable and stable part of the government, foreign countries will not trust the nation and its decisions due to the unstable and uneducated policy. The national councils will be unable to understand how their actions are seen by the rest of the world, which is just as important as gaining their respect.

It is important for every government to pay attention to how other nations judge them. This is important for two reasons. First, it is important for a government to appear to other nations as wise and honorable, even if the particular plan or measure is not merited. Second, if there is doubt or the national councils are influenced by strong emotions or interests, the opinion of the outside world can be the best guide. America has lost a lot by not having a good character with other nations. If America was aware of how the unbiassed part of the world would judge their decisions, they could have avoided many errors and mistakes.

It is clear that a large and changing group can’t have a sense of national character. It can only be found in a small number of people, or in a group that has been trusted for a long time. The people of Rhode Island who were elected every six months probably did not care about what other nations or states thought about the bad decisions they made. But if they had needed the agreement of a select and stable group, they would have thought about the national character and not caused the troubles they are facing now.

I will add a sixth problem to the list: the lack of responsibility from the government to the people in some important cases due to frequent elections. This may seem strange, but when it is explained, it is undeniable and very important.

Responsibility must be limited to things that the responsible person can do. It must be about actions that people can judge easily. There are two main types of government things. The first type has an immediate and clear effect. The other type has a slow and hidden effect. The second type is very important for a country’s long-term success. But it’s not fair to expect a group that is only elected for a short time to be held responsible for results that take many years. It’s hard enough to make sure group members are responsible for their own actions that have an immediate and obvious effect.

The best way to fix this problem is to add another part to the legislative department. This part should be permanent, so it can focus on things that need to be taken care of over a long period of time. This part should be held responsible for making sure that these goals are reached.

So far, I have only talked about why it’s important to have a good senate, in terms of people’s representatives. I want to add that it can also be important to have a senate as a way to protect people from their own mistakes. Sometimes people can be driven by strong feelings or tricked by those who want something for themselves. In these cases, a wise and respected group of citizens could step in to stop people from doing something they’ll later regret. We can see this in Athens, where people voted for some citizens to be given hemlock one day and statues the next. If they had had a senate, they could have been protected from themselves.

It might be said that people who live in a large area cannot easily be influenced by strong emotions or work together to do something wrong like the people of smaller areas can. This is an important difference and I have tried to show that it is a major benefit of a union of republics. Even so, we must still take extra precautions. Also, living in a larger area can make it harder to correct the wrong information that people who have their own interests at heart may spread around.

It is important to remember that no long-lasting republic has existed without a senate. Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are the only examples. It is not known exactly how the senate in Carthage was set up, but it is likely that it worked in the same way as the other two. The senate provides stability while allowing freedom, and although the American republic is different from those ancient republics, there are still some similarities. One of the risks of having just one body of people making laws is that the people’s representatives might not act in their best interest. This risk is even higher than when multiple, different groups are involved in making laws.

The important thing that sets the American republic apart from other republics is the idea of representation. That has been talked about a lot in the past. I don’t disagree with that, and I think its importance should be recognized. But it’s not completely true that the idea of representation was unknown to other republics or the ancient ones. To back up what I’m saying, here are some facts.

In ancient Greece, the most democratic societies had officers that were elected by the people to take care of executive duties. These officers acted on behalf of the people.

Before Solon changed things, Athens was ran by nine archons who were elected by the people. It’s not clear how much power they had. After that, an assembly of four or six hundred people was voted in by the people. They made laws and were able to propose new laws to the people. The Senate in Carthage was voted in by the people too. This happened in a lot of ancient popular governments.

In Sparta and Rome, there are two small groups of people called Ephori and Tribunes. Each year the whole population elects them, and they are seen as representatives of the people, almost as if they have complete authority. In Crete, the Cosmi are chosen by the people every year as well. It is thought by some that this is similar to the other two, except only a portion of the population is allowed to vote.

It’s clear that the ancients knew and used the idea of representation in their governments. The main difference between those governments and the American government is that the people don’t have a say in the American government, but their representatives do. This gives the U.S. a big advantage. We should remember that this advantage wouldn’t be possible without the U.S. having a large territory. Representation wouldn’t work in the small areas of Greece.

In response to all these ideas, which come from reason, are shown by examples, and can be seen in our own experience, the person who is against the Constitution will likely just say that a Senate that is not picked directly by the people and that serves for six years will become more and more powerful in the government and eventually turn it into an oppressive aristocracy.

The answer to this question should be enough; freedom can be threatened by too much freedom or too much power. There are examples of both of these, and it seems like the first one is a bigger threat to the United States. A more specific response can be given too.

It is clear that before a revolution can happen, the Senate must become corrupt first. Then it must make the state legislatures corrupt, then the House of Representatives, and finally the people. If the Senate does not become corrupt first, it won’t be able to make any changes. If it doesn’t make the legislatures corrupt, the periodical change of members would prevent it from achieving its goal. If it doesn’t corrupt the House of Representatives, the opposition of that branch of the government would stop it. If the people are not corrupted, new representatives will undo all changes. Can anyone really believe that the Senate can do this?

If reason shows that the suspicion is wrong, experience confirms it. Maryland’s constitution is a good example of this. The state senate there is elected similarly to how the federal senate will be, only for a term that’s one year shorter. It also has the special power to fill its own vacancies during that term, and isn’t restricted by a rotation like the federal senate. There are a few other differences, which might give the Maryland senate a bad name, but that’s not true for the federal one. If the federal senate was really as bad as people say it is, we should have seen signs of it in the Maryland senate by now. Instead, the doubts that people had about it disappeared as the experiment continued, and the Maryland senate has become more and more respected.

If anything could make people stop worrying about this issue, it should be the British example. In Britain, the Senate is not chosen for a 6-year term by the people, but it is an assembly of wealthy nobles who are in it “for life”. The House of Representatives is not voted on every two years by everyone, but they are picked every seven years by only a few people. This should be a great example of how aristocratic power and tyranny can take over. Unfortunately, though, the British history tells us that the hereditary assembly was not even able to protect itself from the House of Representatives and when it lost the support of the monarchy, it was easily taken down by the people.

Ancient examples support the idea that representatives of the people are powerful. In Sparta, the Ephori, who were elected every year by the people, eventually took control of all the power away from the senate that was in power for life. Rome’s tribunes, who also were representatives of the people, often won against the life-long senate and eventually gained complete control over it. Amazingly, they won even when they had to agree unanimously on every decision (even after the number of tribunes increased to ten). This shows how powerful a free government is when it has the people’s support. Lastly, in Carthage, Polybius said that the senate had lost most of its power at the start of the Second Punic War.

It is clear from the facts that the federal senate will never change itself into an independent and powerful body. Even if this were to happen, the house of representatives, with the people on their side, would be able to return the constitution to its original form. To keep the senate in its constitutional authority, it must show good policy and care for the people, so that the whole population will support it.

The Federalist 64:

Written by John Jay

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

It is not a new idea that people who do not like certain people or certain ideas often criticize things that do not deserve it. Unless this is the reason, it is hard to understand why some people are so critical of the new constitution even though some of its parts are very good.

The second part gives the president the authority, with the help and agreement of the senate, to create treaties. This requires two-thirds of the senators present to agree.

The power to make treaties is really important, especially when it comes to war, peace, and business. It should only be given to people who are really qualified, and who will make decisions that are good for everyone. The people who wrote the Constitution thought of both these ideas. They said that the President should be chosen by people who were picked to do that job. And they said that Senators should be chosen by the state governments. This is much better than when people vote for someone in a big group, because then people can be tricked into voting for someone who isn’t really good for the job.

As the people who pick the president and the state legislatures that pick the senators are usually the most educated and important citizens, it is likely they will only pick people who have shown they are smart and have good morals. The Constitution is careful to make sure that the best people are picked by not letting anyone under 35 be president and anyone under 30 be a senator. If it is true that wise kings always have good advisors, then it stands to reason that when a group of very smart people get together to pick a president and senators, they will make good choices. We can assume that the president and senators that are picked will know what is best for our country when it comes to both the states and foreign nations. They will also be people that we can trust because of their good reputation. These are the kinds of people that should be given the power to make treaties.

It is common knowledge that any business requires a system to run properly. However, the public does not understand how important this is in national affairs. Those who want to leave the power to a popular assembly, made up of people constantly coming and going, don’t see that it can’t handle the difficult tasks that require talent, information, and time. The convention was wise to give the power to smart and trustworthy people and to have them stay in place long enough to learn about our nation’s affairs and to create and implement a system for managing them. The prescribed duration gives them the chance to get more and more information and experience to help their country. The convention was also smart about the way it set up frequent elections for senators to avoid having to transfer great affairs to new people all the time. That way, there will be continuity and a constant supply of official information.

Many agree that the way that trade and navigation are handled should be carefully planned out and followed consistently. It is very important that the way these things are managed lines up with our agreements and laws. Those who agree with this idea understand that the Senate’s agreement is necessary for both treaties and laws.

It is not often that perfect secrecy and speed are not needed when making treaties. It is possible to get important information if the people giving it do not think that it will be revealed. People, whether they are being paid or helping out of kindness, will trust the President to keep secrets, but not the Senate or a big group of people. The Convention made a good decision to give the President the power to make treaties with the advice and help of the Senate, so that he can keep secrets wisely.

People who have paid attention to what’s happening in the world have noticed that there are times when things change quickly. It’s important for those in charge to recognize and take advantage of these times. Experienced people will tell you that sometimes days or even hours can be important. A lost battle, the death of a leader, or a change of government can lead to a situation where the tide turns against what was desired. In the same way, in politics, there are moments that can be taken advantage of. In the past, the lack of speed and secrecy has caused us problems. The Constitution makes sure that when negotiating treaties, we have the best talents, information, and integrity. It also makes sure that we get the speed and secrecy that we need.

However, people come up with objections to this plan, like most other plans.

Some people are unhappy with treaties because they are treated like laws and should only be made by people with legislative authority. However, court decisions and commissions given by a governor are just as valid and binding. All constitutional acts of power, whether from the legislature, executive, or judicial department, have the same legal power and obligation. Just because the people gave the power to make laws to the legislature, doesn’t mean they should also have the power to do other sovereign acts that the citizens must obey.

Some people are happy with the idea of making treaties like the way it’s proposed, but they don’t want it to be the most important law. They think that treaties can be changed like laws made by governments, which is a new idea. This is something to think about, because a treaty is like a deal. Both sides have to agree to it when it’s made, and both sides have to agree to change it. The proposed constitution doesn’t change this at all. Treaties will still be just as important, and just as hard to change, no matter what kind of government there is.

Jealousy can be useful in a republic, but too much of it can make people see things that aren’t real. Some people are worried that the president and senate won’t act in the best interest of all the states. Others are concerned that the two-thirds will be unfair to the remaining third. People are asking if the people in power can be punished if they act wrong and how do we get rid of bad treaties?

All states in the Senate have equal representation and the people in these states are very capable and willing to represent their constituents. This will give them all the same degree of power in the Senate, as long as they keep appointing the right people and make sure they show up. As the US takes on a national identity, the benefit of the whole nation will be more important. The president and senate will not be able to make any treaties that just benefit them, so they will not be tempted to think about their own interests before the nation’s.

It is not possible to think that the president and two-thirds of the Senate would ever engage in corrupt behavior. This is an idea that is too wrong and unfair to consider. However, if something like this were to happen, the treaty that we would get from them would not be legal according to international law, like any other fraudulent agreement.

It is hard to imagine how responsibility could be any greater. Everything that influences humans, such as honor, oaths, reputation, and conscience, as well as love for country and family, provides assurance of loyalty. The Constitution ensures that those making treaties are talented and honest, so we can trust that the treaties they make will be beneficial. The article on impeachment gives a clear incentive to behave well, as there is fear of punishment and shame.

The Federalist 65:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The plan of the convention gives the Senate certain extra powers. They help the executive by taking part in appointing people to positions and they act as a court to judge impeachments. Since the executive is the main person involved in appointing people, this will be discussed when looking at that department. Finally, we’ll look at the Senate’s judicial role.

It is hard to obtain a court for trying impeachments in a government where people are elected. The charges are usually about misconduct by public servants or a breach of trust. These are political matters that can stir up a lot of emotions in a community, and the people can become divided into groups for or against the accused. It can even become connected to existing groups and their attitudes, and the decision may be based on which side is most powerful, instead of on innocence or guilt.

Trust is a very important thing for those in politics, as their reputation and careers depend on it. It can be hard to find the right balance in a government which relies on regular elections, as the most well-known people in the government can often be influenced by the most powerful or numerous group. This means they may not be neutral when it comes to looking at the behaviour of others.

It seemed like the convention believed that the senate was the best place to put this important trust. People who understand how hard this is will not be too quick to disagree with this opinion, and they will try to understand the arguments that made it that way.

What is the true spirit of the institution? Is it not to investigate the conduct of public officials? If so, who would be better suited to be the investigators than the representatives of the nation themselves? It is agreed that one part of the legislative body should have the power to start the investigation, or impeachment. So, shouldn’t the other part of the legislative body have a role in the investigation? This is what the model that the idea of this institution was based on suggested. In Great Britain, it’s the House of Commons that makes the impeachment and the House of Lords that decides on it. Some state constitutions also follow this example. Impeachment is seen as a way for the legislative body to keep the executive servants of the government in check. Isn’t that the right way to look at it?

Where else could have been found a tribunal that was dignified and independent enough than in the Senate? What other body could have enough confidence in its own situation to remain unbiased and impartial between someone accused and the people who were accusing them?

Could the Supreme Court be trusted to do this? It is very doubtful if the members of this court would have enough bravery to do such a difficult job. It is even more doubtful if they would have enough respect and authority to make people accept a decision that is against what their representatives think. If they do not have enough bravery, it would be bad for the accused. If they do not have enough respect and authority, it could create problems for the public peace. To avoid these risks, the court would have to be larger than is practical for economy. To do this trial in an impeachment, you need a lot of people. The rules for this trial are different than for normal cases. There is no jury between the judges, who must decide the sentence, and the person it will affect. This kind of trial needs to have a lot of people in it, because it is so important to decide if someone should get honor or shame.

These reasons seem enough to show that the Supreme Court would not be a good choice as a court for impeachments. There is another reason why this is true. If someone is convicted of impeachment, then they will not just be punished once. They will be punished forever, by not being able to get the respect, trust, honors, or money of their country. They will also be able to be prosecuted in an ordinary court. Would it be right for the people who decided that person’s fate in the impeachment trial to also decide their fate in the other trial? Would there not be a good chance that the first trial would cause mistakes in the second one? People who know human nature will know that the answer is yes. This means that if the same people judge both trials, then the people who are being tried will not have the double protection that a double trial would give them. They could lose both their life and all their money in a sentence that only says they can not have a certain job. It could be said that a jury in the second trial could stop this from happening, but juries can be influenced by judges. They can even be made to give a special verdict that depends on the judge’s decision. Who would be willing to risk their life and money on a jury that is supported by judges who already think they are guilty?

Would it be better to join the Supreme Court with the Senate in creating a court of impeachments? This would have some advantages, but would the disadvantages outweigh them? The plan of the Convention suggests that having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as president of the court of impeachments will get some of the benefits without the drawbacks of an entire merge. This could be the smart thing to do. It would also avoid giving people more reasons to complain about the courts.

Should a court be created to try impeachments, separate from the other government departments? There are arguments for and against this idea. A potential drawback is that it could make the political system more complex and would be of questionable benefit. A more serious issue is that it would be expensive or may have difficulties in practice. It would either be made up of permanent officers with regular salaries at the government’s seat, or officers from the state governments called to serve when needed. This would require many people, which would be costly, or be hard to collect people from all over the country. There is also the risk of innocent people having their cases delayed, giving the guilty time to plan and bribe. In some cases, it could even hurt the state by stopping people from doing their duty if they are targeted by a majority from the House of Representatives. This might not be likely, but it’s important to remember that factions can take control of large groups.

Even though one of the other options or something else might be better than the plan made by the convention, that does not mean that the constitution should be rejected. If everyone waited for the perfect plan of government, there would be chaos and the world would be a desert. Where can the perfect plan be found? Who can make everyone agree on the same plan? Opponents of the constitution must not just show that certain parts are not the best they could be, but that the plan as a whole is bad and dangerous.

The Federalist 66:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

A look at the main arguments against the proposed court for the trial of impeachments might get rid of any bad feelings about it that people still might have.

The first problem with the proposed plan is that it mixes the legislative and judicial powers, which goes against a well-known rule. This rule has been discussed and it is possible to combine certain elements of the two powers for specific purposes, while keeping them mostly separate. Having the executive power give an absolute or qualified “no” to laws passed by the legislative can be an important barrier to stop the legislative from taking too much control. Similarly, having two branches of the legislature handle impeachment – one to accuse and the other to judge – can help by avoiding the same people doing both and preventing anyone from using it for their own gain. This process also provides more security since it will take two-thirds of the senate to convict.

It is strange to see how strongly people who say they love the Constitution of New York oppose this part of the plan. The Constitution of New York gives the Senate, together with the Chancellor and Judges of the Supreme Court, the power to hear impeachment cases and to be the highest court in the state in all civil and criminal cases. The number of the Chancellor and Judges compared to the number of Senators is so small that the court of New York really resides in its Senate. If the plan of the Convention violates the famous rule that is often mentioned, but not understood well, then the Constitution of New York must be even more wrong.

A second problem with the Senate having the power to impeach is that it leads to too much power in that body, which looks too much like an aristocracy. People point out that the Senate already has the right to make treaties and appoint people to offices, and if they also get the power to make decisions in impeachment cases, it will give them too much power. It is hard to find a definite answer to this kind of objection. It would be simpler to look at each power individually and decide where it should be placed in a way that is most beneficial and least inconvenient.

If we take this course, it will likely give us a better result. The idea of having the Senate join the Executive to pick people for jobs has probably been proven to be a good idea in our last discussion. It’s also likely that the Senate being in charge of impeachment was the best choice. So, the worry that the Senate might be too powerful should not be considered.

This idea has already been disputed in terms of how long senators should hold office. It was argued that, based on both historical examples and logic, the branch of government that is most popular with the people (which usually has a republican leaning) will be just as powerful if not more powerful than other branches of government.

The plan of the convention provided some important counterbalances to the extra powers given to the Senate to make sure the national House of Representatives had equilibrium. The House of Representatives will have the exclusive privilege of starting money bills and the right to begin impeachments. They will also be the umpire in all elections of the President when a majority of the electors don’t agree. This could happen often, so this power might be more influential than the Senate’s special attributes.

A third objection to the senate as a court of impeachments, is drawn from the agency they are to have in the appointments to office. It is imagined that they would be too indulgent judges of the conduct of men, in whose official creation they had participated. The principle of this objection would con- demn a practice, which is to be seen in all the state governments, if not in all the governments with which we are acquainted: I mean that of rendering those, who hold offices during pleasure, dependent on the pleasure of those who appoint them. With equal plausibility might it be alleged in this case, that the favouritism of the latter would always be an asylum for the mis- behaviour of the former. But that practice, in contradiction to this principle, proceeds upon the presumption, that the responsibility of those who ap- point, for the fitness and competency of the persons on whom they bestow their choice, and the interest they have in the respectable and prosperous ad- ministration of affairs, will inspire a sufficient disposition, to dismiss from a share in it, all such who by their conduct may have proved themselves un- worthy of the confidence reposed in them. Though facts may not always correspond with this presumption, yet if it be in the main just, it must de- stroy the supposition, that the senate, who will merely sanction the choice of the executive, should feel a bias, towards the objects of that choice, strong enough to blind them to the evidences of guilt so extraordinary, as to have induced the representatives of the nation to become its accusers.

If we need more proof that this opinion is unlikely to be true, we can look at the role of the senate in making decisions about appointments.

The President will nominate people for positions, and the Senate will advise and approve or reject those nominations. The Senate will not make the choice; they can only agree or disagree with the President’s choice. Even if they don’t like the President’s choice, they can’t be sure that their preferred choice will be the next one. So, usually the Senate will only agree to a nomination if they think the person is qualified and deserving.

A fourth problem with the senate acting as a court of impeachment is that they have the power to make treaties with the executive. This means that if the senators betray the nation’s interests in a bad treaty, they would be the ones to decide whether or not to punish themselves for their treachery. This doesn’t seem fair and would not result in the punishment they deserve.

This complaint is being taken more seriously and is seen as having more reason than any other argument against this plan. However, I think it is based on a wrong idea.

The Constitution seeks to protect us from corruption and betrayal when it comes to making treaties. This is done by making the President and two-thirds of the members of a group chosen by the collective wisdom of the states’ legislatures responsible. The Constitution could have punished the President and a few key members of the Senate if they prostituted their influence, but they couldn’t have punished two-thirds of the Senate if they agreed to a bad treaty. It’s like how a majority of the House of Representatives can’t punish themselves. It’s not fair for a majority of the House to get away with unfair laws, while two-thirds of the Senate can’t get away with a bad treaty. It’s important for the members of the group to be free from punishment for group decisions, and for the trust to be in the right hands. That way, it will be hard for them to work together against the public good.

We don’t need to worry about the executive not following instructions or going against the senate. The senate will likely be proud and want to show they are in control. If there is evidence of corruption from leading members, we can expect the senate to put the blame on them and not take any themselves.

---