Hamilton for majority rule

Federalist 22

Here is a tirade against the equality of votes of the states in the US congress created by the Articles of Confederation.

Hamilton views that rule as a tool of obstruction enabling seven states, seven being the smallest integer greater than half the then whole number of states, together representing less than a third of the people, to permanently obstruct efforts of those representing over two thirds of the population, in defiance of what he calls the essential feature of popular government, majority rule.

At the time various important matters required the consent of nine states.

But the inequality of population was such that a group of nine states could be formed, nine being the smallest integer not less than two thirds of the whole number of states, to carry any such great measure as they wished against the opposition of all the others, though the nine represented less than half the population of the country.

So this, too, gave grossly disproportionate power to the small states in blatant disregard of the majoritarian principle.

What must Hamilton have thought of the Great Compromise that preserved exactly that obstructive power for the small states?

What must he think of the surenchère of the modern senate whose rules effectively, though not directly, require sixty votes out of a hundred to pass nearly anything any senator finds he deplores?

As to the alleged power of the senate to impose such a rule of voting on itself, if it lies in the power to make its own rules it is there in invisible ink, since there is no text to say such an absurd power is included in that of rulemaking.

On the other hand, there is nothing anywhere that says the two houses of the legislature must vote only by majority rule on all things not otherwise specified in the constitution itself (various confirmation votes in the senate, etc.).

To claim the constitution requires by implication majority voting on everything on which it does not forbid it is a better invisible ink argument, but still an invisible ink argument.

The fact that the filibuster in its original form was invented by accident and played almost no role at all until the 20th Century does support the idea that everyone took it for granted voting in both houses would, with the given exceptions, always be by majority, including the framers, the ratifies, the people at large, and certainly Hamilton in Federalist 22.

And while we are on the topic, is the president of the US the master of his own cabinet?

He cannot hire them at will, they cannot be fired and resign with the end of the presidential term only by helpful custom, and the constitution sees a need to say outright the president can ask them to tell him what’s going on in their departments.

By implication, they are the masters of their departments and he is so far from their master that he may not have the least idea what they and their departments are up to.

He may have to ask meekly that they tell him, something he is enabled to do only by express provision.

And they are required to reply only by implication.

More invisible ink, that is to say.

Is the president truly the boss of the executive branch?

Some boss.

Update 4/1.

There is a letter from Madison to Washington written before the convention at Philadelphia in which he deplores various features of the government set up by the Articles of Confederation, especially including the extravagant power given the small states by their equal suffrage in the congress.

In that regard, the Great Compromise ensured the new constitution would not be much better.

He also deplores that nothing in the Articles prevents the madness of paper currency and fully intends the new constitution to do that.

On that one he actually succeeded.

Oh, please bring back that constitution from its exile!

Just kidding, of course.