Congressional action on the proposed bailout confirms expectations by the founders about how each institution was likely act, as well as their attitudes about the nature of public opinion.
The House, which narrowly refused to pass the bill on Monday, did so (apparently) due to the hostility of their constituents. All members are subject to reelection this November (unless they are retiring) so they are risk averse and prone to follow the wishes of their constituents. This what we would expect from delegates. The problem now seems to be that since the stock market tanked following the no vote, constituents may be changing their minds. A representative can't help but be confused.
From Slate.com: "There was a widespread sense on Capitol Hill that Monday's vote had snapped the public to attention about the potential repercussions of Congress's failure to act," notes the WP. Consequently, lawmakers' offices were flooded with calls, and there was a marked shift in tone as constituents who found themselves spooked by the huge plunge in Wall Street demanded that Congress do something. "It's completely in the other direction now," Boehner's spokesman said. But the WSJ says that House Democrats who voted against the bill received thousands of calls from constituents who mostly agreed with them. Now lawmakers might realize that trying to do what their constituents want is a little difficult when the public as a whole isn't really sure of what it wants.
The last comment perfectly illustrates the fear the founders had about the capricious nature of public opinion and may well justify the indirect design of American democracy. It's worth noting that the Senate, as of a few moments ago, passed the bailout. Not a huge surprise given their removal from the close influence of the electorate.
