Antifederalist No. 62 

ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE  (PART 1) 


Taken from the 16th essay of "Brutus" from The New York Journal 
of April 10, 1788. 

     The following things may be observed with respect to the 
constitution of the Senate. 
     1st.  They are to be elected by the legislatures of the 
States and not by the people, and each State is to be represented 
by an equal number. 
     2d. They are to serve for six years, except that one third 
of those first chosen are to go out of office at the expiration 
of two years, one third at the expiration of four years, and one 
third at the expiration of six years, after which this rotation 
is to be preserved, but still every member will serve for the 
term of six years. 
     3d. If vacancies happen by resignation or otherwise, during 
the recess of the legislature of any State, the executive is 
authorised to make temporary appointments until the next meeting 
of the legislature. 
     4.  No person can be a senator who had not arrived to the 
age of thirty years, been nine years a citizen of the United 
States, and who is not at the time he is elected an inhabitant of 
the State for which he is elected. 
     The apportionment of members of the Senate among the States 
is not according to numbers, or the importance of the States, but 
is equal.  This, on the plan of a consolidated government, is 
unequal and improper; but is proper on the system of 
confederation - on this principle I approve of it.  It is indeed 
the only feature of any importance in the constitution of a 
confederated government. It was obtained after a vigorous 
struggle of that part of the Convention who were in favor of 
preserving the state governments. It is to be regretted that they 
were not able to have infused other principles into the plan, to 
have secured the government of the respective states, and to have 
marked with sufficient precision the line between them and the 
general government. 
     The term for which the senate are to be chosen, is in my 
judgment too long, and no provision being made for a rotation 
will, I conceive, be of dangerous consequence. 
     It is difficult to fix the precise period for which the 
senate should be chosen.  It is a matter of opinion, and our 
sentiments on the matter must be formed, by attending to certain 
principles.  Some of the duties which are to be performed by the 
Senate, seem evidently to point out the propriety of their term 
of service being extended beyond the period of that of the 
assembly. Besides, as they are designed to represent the 
aristocracy of the country, it seems fit they should possess more 
stability, and so continue a longer period then that branch who 
represent the democracy.  The business of making treaties and 
some other which it will be proper to commit to the senate, 
requires that they should have experience, and therefore that 
they should remain some time in office to acquire it. But still 
it is of equal importance that they should not be so long in 
office as to be likely to forget the hand that formed them, or be 
insensible of their interests. Men long in office are very apt to 
feel themselves independent; to form and pursue interests 
separate from those who appointed them.  And this is more likely 
to be the case with the senate, as they will for the most part of 
the time be absent from the state they represent, and associate 
with such company as will possess very little of the feelings of 
the middling class of people.  For it is to be remembered that 
there is to be a federal city, and the inhabitants of it will be 
the great and the mighty of the earth. For these reasons I would 
shorten the term of their service to four years.  Six years is a 
long period for a man to be absent from his home; it would have a 
tendency to wean him from his constituents. 
     A rotation in the senate would also in my opinion be of 
great use.  It is probable that senators once chosen for a state 
will, as the system now stands, continue in office for life.  The 
office will be honorable if not lucrative.  The persons who 
occupy it will probably wish to continue in it, and therefore use 
all their influence and that of their friends to continue in 
office.  Their friends will be numerous and powerful, for they 
will have it in their power to confer great favors-, besides it 
will before long be considered as disgraceful not to be 
reelected.  It will therefore be considered as a matter of 
delicacy to the character of the senator not to return him again.  
Everybody acquainted with public affairs knows how difficult it 
is to remove from office a person who is long been in it.  It is 
seldom done except in cases of gross misconduct.  It is rare that 
want of competent ability procures it.  To prevent this 
inconvenience I conceive it would be wise to determine, that a 
senator should not be eligible after he had served for the period 
assigned by the constitution for a certain number of years; 
perhaps three would be sufficient.  A further benefit would be 
derived from such an arrangement; it would give opportunity to 
bring forward a greater number of men to serve their country, and 
would return those, who had served, to their state, and afford 
them the advantage of becoming better acquainted with the 
condition and politics of their constituents.  It further appears 
to me proper, that the legislatures should retain the right which 
they now hold under the confederation, of recalling their 
members.  It seems an evident dictate of reason that when a 
person authorises another to do a piece of business for him, he 
should retain the power to displace him, when he does not conduct 
according to his pleasure.  This power in the state legislatures, 
under confederation, has not been exercised to the injury of the 
government, nor do I see any danger of its being so exercised 
under the new system. It may operate much to the public benefit. 
     These brief remarks are all I shall make on the organization 
of the senate. The powers with which they are invested will 
require a more minute investigation. 
     This body will possess a strange mixture of legislative, 
executive, and judicial powers, which in my opinion will in some 
cases clash with each other. 
     1.   They are one branch of the legislature, and in this 
respect will possess equal powers in all cases with the house of 
representatives; for I consider the clause which gives the house 
of representatives the right of originating bills for raising a 
revenue as merely nominal, seeing the senate . . . [has the 

power] to propose or concur with amendments. 
     2. They are a branch of the executive in the appointment of 
ambassadors and public ministers, and in the appointment of all 
other officers, not otherwise provided for.  Whether the forming 
of treaties, in which they are joined with the president, 
appertains to the legislative or the executive part of the 
government, or to neither, is not material. 
     3.   They are a part of the judicial, for they form the 
court of impeachments. 
     It has been a long established maxim, that the legislative, 
executive and judicial departments in government should be kept 
distinct.  It is said, I know, that this cannot be done.  And 
therefore that this maxim is not just, or at least that it should 
only extend to certain leading features in a government.  I admit 
that this distinction cannot be perfectly preserved.  In a due 
balanced government, it is perhaps absolutely necessary to give 
the executive qualified legislative powers, and the legislative 
or a branch of them judicial powers in the last resort. It may 
possibly also, in some special cases, be advisable to associate 
the legislature, or a branch of it, with the executive, in the 
exercise of acts of great national importance.  But still the 
maxim is a good one, and a separation of these powers should be 
sought as far as is practicable.  I can scarcely imagine that any 
of the advocates of the system will pretend, that it was 
necessary to accumulate all these powers in the senate. There is 
a propriety in the senate's possessing legislative powers.  This 
is the principal end which should be held in view in their 
appointment.  I need not here repeat what has so often and ably 
been advanced on the subject of a division of the legislative 
power into two branches.  The arguments in favor of it I think 
conclusive.  But I think it equally evident, that a branch of the 
legislature should not be invested with the power of appointing 
officers.  This power in the senate is very improperly lodged for 
a number of reasons - These shall be detailed in a future number. 
                         BRUTUS