58

The founders had two models in particularly in mind: the Ancient Roman Senate, and the UK parliament of Monarch/Lords/Commons. In the UK, the House of Lords functioned as a Supreme Court. The founders wanted to separate the powers of the court from the Upper house, but they still wanted the upper house to have a role in approving justices. The expectation ...


24

The framers didn't trust democracy or the people (at the federal level) A shocking sentiment to many, perhaps, but a fact nonetheless. They often saw direct democracy on any given matter as either too onerous a burden on the people (believing they should put in great diligence to exercise the power wisely, but fearing they wouldn't due to lack of time and ...


15

The existing answers are good, but I think they miss one element of why the Senate performs this function and not the House: Senators were originally appointed by state governments. The scope of federal law was originally quite slight, and a substantial amount of federal court business was naturally anticipated to deal with disputes between states. Having ...


9

No, the one vote per state rule comes from the 12th Amendment and could only be replaced or superseded by a new constitutional Amendment. See the bolded portion of the Amendment below: ... if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of ...


4

So, as William has mentioned, the fact that the Senate's consent is required in court appointments is established in the U. S. Constitution, Article II, section 2: He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible