In yet another Federalist Paper that seems to have been written to answer the questions we see in the headlines today, Hamilton reemerges in Federalist 59 to discuss how voting procedures are reserved to the states. He quotes the proposed constitution that “The TIMES, PLACES, and MANNER of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof”[1] (The emphasis is in Hamilton’s writing not in the Constitution itself). Congress may alter voting rules except “as to the PLACES of choosing senators.”
This limitation was created to prevent congress from denying a particular state the authority to seat its Senators. You will recall that, unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate is not chosen by popular vote, but rather by the legislatures of the individual states. Both Article I Section 4 of the Constitution, and Hamilton’s clarification in Federalist 59, mean that the “PLACES” he is referring to is clearly not a discussion around individual polling locations. It includes the individual states themselves as well as the legislatures therein. As Hamilton says, the Federal government must “CONTAIN IN ITSELF THE MEANS OF ITS OWN PRESERVATION” and, at the time he was writing, there was the very real possibility of an “extraordinary circumstance(s)” that might cause the federal government to intervene, but never as to the place for choosing senators, be that the individual state or the legislators of those states. Previous papers by Madison have very eloquently argued for keeping separate the popularly elected House, and the state selected Senate. This is why the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was such a grave error both from a structural, and a legal standpoint.
While that ship has already sailed so to speak, it is worth considering what other types of “PRESERVATION” Hamilton might have been referring to in that sentence. Fortunately, we have his own language to guide us. The concern was that the states might attempt to destroy the federal government “by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs”. Basically, should the states decide not to conduct federal elections, the federal government would be unable to operate and therefore have the right to step in. But the possibility that someone would actually propose “empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States”, is such an absurd hypothetical that Hamilton dismisses out of hand, “would any man have hesitated to condemn it”? Of course not. The power to regulate elections, as long as they are held, must be kept at the state level to avoid an “unwarrantable transposition of power”. Federal intrusion, beyond a state actually “declining the appointment of Senators” is an abuse of federal power over the states. And yet here we are.
As if to reinforce the point that the 17 Amendment was an egregious error, Hamilton points out that the only way to prevent the possibility of the states, through their individual legislatures, from failing to select Senators would have to be action “excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government.” That is precisely what the 17th Amendment did. It excluded the States from having a role in the national government by transferring that authority directly to the people which was a violation of the intent of our founders and a repudiation of the very clear warnings of both Plato and Aristotle about the dangers of direct democracy.
In case there is any doubt that the founders had only the failure of states to seat Senators as a reason to have a role in state voting rules, Hamilton goes on to discuss quorum rules, and the fact that Senate terms, combined with the staggering of Senate elections, makes even his hypothetical about Federal election involvement a long shot. Should states decide to “annul the existence nor impair the activity of the body” (the Senate) it would take a coalition of states to do so and that would be a difficult thing for the individual states to accomplish. That states might have different issues than that of their populations is not an insignificant distinction. As Hamilton points out “diversity of sentiment between a majority of the people, and the individuals who have the greatest credit in their councils” is a real thing. And if Federalism is to mean anything, the rights of states to be represented by choosing their representatives in the Senate, is critical.
Indeed.
All quotes are from https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493432 ↑
To read all of John Parillo’s work on the Federalist Papers, check here.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Great job, John, explaining Hamilton’s reasoning for the states electing senators. I have never understood how the 17th ever passed. I think it’s an accepted fact that the founders were genius in instituting the bicameral congress because they feared a pure democracy. The intention was to ensure the states as separate entities would have a say in legislation and act as a counter to the tyranny of the majority, as is the case now. After all, they were establishing the United STATES of America. What other reason could there have been for having two separate chambers? As others have said, we now have both chambers representing the individual voter and no representation for the state. In my opinion, the 17th Amendment was the beginning of the end of the constitutional republic.
It is astonishing to me that it happened. I am embarrassed to admit that this is the first time I had read Hamilton’s words on the subject, but it could not be more clear.
Perhaps the 17th Amendment could be a show case for a COS.
Good point Mark, it could and should. But I think we have an unhealthy fetish for democracy that will not go away easily.
The 16th Amendment was just as damaging. Both were ratified in 1913. The 16th Amendment allowed congress to spend on anything it and seemingly without limit. It also brought us the federal income tax and the IRS. What a bad year for the Republic.
And both brought to you by Founding Father of Fascism and Resurrector of the Klan Woodrow Wilson. 🙁