Article I, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The Framers of the Constitution aimed to limit Congress’s power further by specifying in the Legislative Vesting Clause that Congress would be a bicameral institution composed of a House of Representatives and Senate. Although Congress’s bicameral structure was a departure from the unicameral legislature comprised of state delegations under the Articles of Confederation,1 the Framers had significant experience with bicameral legislatures. Under British rule, colonists were subject to law enacted by the bicameral Parliament of Great Britain, where the hereditary aristocracy was represented in the House of Lords and the freeholders of the land were represented in the House of Commons.2 Further, many of the Framers of the Constitution were governed by their bicameral state legislatures. Following the Declaration of Independence in 1776, all the states but Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont established bicameral legislatures.3
The Constitutional Convention4 was assembled in 1787, in part, to restructure the national unicameral legislature and to address the defects
of the Articles of Confederation.5 Congress, under the Articles, had no direct means to implement or compel compliance with its laws.6 For example, Congress lacked the power to levy duties, to tax individuals directly, and to regulate interstate commerce.7 The Articles, recognizing the states’ sovereignty, freedom, and independence,
retained for the states all powers not expressly delegated to Congress.8 As a result, Congress, among other things, was unable to stop states from adopting discriminatory and retaliatory
trade practices among the states.9
However, in seeking to strengthen federal legislative power over states and individuals, the Framers were also concerned that a single legislative body with unchecked and concentrated power would threaten individual liberties.10 James Wilson, representing Pennsylvania at the Convention, cautioned that [i]f the Legislative authority be not restrained, there can be no liberty nor stability.
11 In supporting a bicameral Congress, he remarked that legislative power can only be restrained by dividing it within itself, into distinct and independent branches. In a single house there is no check, but the inadequate one, of the virtue [and] good sense of those who compose it.
12
In debating the new structure of Congress, the Convention considered several proposals.13 Much of the debate focused on two proposals—the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan.14 Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan that proposed three separate branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial.15 The Legislative Branch under the Virginia Plan would consist of a bicameral body in which each state would have a different number of representatives based on the state’s population.16 In addition, the Virginia Plan allowed Congress to exercise legislative authority over individuals, removing the constraint under the Articles that the state legislatures act as intermediaries to implement enacted legislation.17 The Virginia Plan was principally favored by the larger states that embraced the notion that the view of the majority of the Nation’s population should prevail in the national legislature.18
As an alternative to the Virginia Plan, William Paterson proposed the New Jersey Plan to the Convention.19 In following the unicameral structure provided under the Articles of Confederation, Paterson’s proposal represented an effort to revise the current Articles rather than replace them.20 The proposed structure of Congress under the New Jersey Plan provided for a unicameral legislature with a voting system that allowed for one vote per state in the national legislature.21 Under this proposed system, Congress would require the consent
of the state legislatures before exercising legislative authority directly upon individuals.22 Smaller states generally supported the New Jersey Plan because they did not favor a major departure from the Articles or proportional representation in Congress based on state size.23