Extract
[...] The second chamber has also allowed the President to assert his position. In fact, throughout the constitutional history of France, the role of the latter has never ceased to vary, but always in an extreme way. Thus, with the Constitution of 1789, his role was reduced to a mere shadow, while under the imperial regimes he would seize all powers. The relationships between the President of the Republic and the National Assembly are complex. How can one imagine that a man, who was not initially elected by universal suffrage, could contradict the will of the nation? [...]
[...] As soon as the Parliament consists of only one chamber, this one could quickly believe itself to be the only emanation of the nation's will and therefore exercise, in this capacity, a tyrannical and unlimited power. On the other hand, the exact role of this second chamber has been the subject of debate. For some, the Upper House, not having the same democratic legitimacy as the National Assembly, should only be a censor. This is, for example, the conception of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. [...]
[...] This parliamentary shuttle has the virtue of tempering the excesses or partisan positions of others by some. The stabilizing role of the second chamber then resurfaces. In fact, bicameralism complicates the adoption of strongly ideologically connoted texts, while it facilitates the passage of more consensual texts. However, this role must be nuanced, since majorities are often concordant between the executive and the two chambers of parliament. Bicameralism can also not be praised for its moderation functions but for those of improving the norm. [...]
[...] Yet it has crossed political regimes; perhaps because ultimately the second chamber of Parliament plays a more symbolic role than an effective one. Indeed, to be applied by those who are subject to it, a law must appear legitimate. On this point, the role of a second chamber is not negligible. Indeed, the Senate positions itself as the institution capable of adapting the law to the complexity of today's society. Its legitimacy, unlike that of the National Assembly, appears not so much in its representativeness as in its ability to be an essential actor in the process of developing the legislative norm. [...]
[...] For others, such as Benjamin Constant, the power of the second chamber must go beyond that of preventing. This organ must embody, by its neutral character, the continuity of the State. If an illustration of this conception can be found in the powers of the President of the Senate in the event of a vacancy of the Presidency of the Republic, this doctrine has never found a real illustration in contemporary regimes. Today, the Senate appears as a bulwark against the domination of the three key figures, consecrated by the 5th Republic, namely, the President of the Republic, the government and the National Assembly, in particular when the majorities are concordant. [...]
