Timeline for Is there a reason why the U.S. Senate, unlike most upper chambers in liberal democracies, is still co-equal to the lower chamber?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 2019 at 20:55 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | I'll try to make some changes in the next few days, if I can find the time. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 19:50 | comment | added | Publius | "But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but 'of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.'" Madison, Federalist No. 62 (emphasis added). I agree that these post-hoc justifications likely informed ratifying state legislatures, and are therefore worth discussing. It's just that an answer about the structure of the Senate should also discuss the original justifications for its structure. | |
| Mar 22, 2019 at 6:30 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @Avi I don't see it anywhere specifically admitting such a thing. It does recognize that the Senate was politically necessary to address the concerns of smaller states. But whether the various arguments it provides concerning the expected utility and benefits of the Senate were then tacked on afterwards, or were already present in the discussions that led to it, is not clear. And insofar as the Federalist papers can be thought of as propaganda for adopting the constitution, any post-hoc justifications of the writers become the express rationale of the adopting legislatures, anyway. | |
| Mar 22, 2019 at 5:30 | comment | added | Publius | Federalist 62 is pretty much where I'm getting this from. The Federalist Papers were post-hoc justifications, and 62 specifically admitted it was a post-hoc justification, acknowledging that the Senate was added to the Constitution out of political necessity. | |
| Mar 21, 2019 at 12:17 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | @Avi Your claims are specifically refuted in a reading of the documents of the time, either by James Wilson or Federalist 62. Federalist 62 is the ideal citation for this answer. | |
| Mar 21, 2019 at 8:39 | comment | added | Evargalo | This interesting answer would benefit from sources and quotes from the founding fathers acknowledging their purpose in creating the Senate the way they did. | |
| Mar 21, 2019 at 6:34 | comment | added | Publius | I think this explanation is a little too teleological. It describes some of the post-hoc justifications for the Senate, but the Senate wasn't create because the founders believed these reasons justified a Senate. It was created to ensure the smaller states would sign onto the Constitution. In other words, none of this mattered when the Constitution was being created. It's justification after the fact. | |
| Mar 18, 2019 at 6:37 | vote | accept | ANZGC FlyingFalcon | ||
| Mar 18, 2019 at 1:25 | history | answered | zibadawa timmy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |