Concluding thoughts on the Federalist Papers and Constitutional Government

Last night I finished all 85 essays in the Federalist Papers.  After nearly 2 months, I have learned a ton about our government and its foundational theory, but at the same time I have struggled to understand what has happened.  Anyway, here are a few of my concluding thoughts/questions:

From the 45th paper: Madison believed that the federal government would have less influence on the typical citizen because they would employ fewer people in comparison to the state and local governments.
While the theory sounds nice, and the statistics are true (the federal government employs roughly 25% of the number of people when compared to the state and local governments combined) the actual reality seems far different.  Federal housing, taxation, medicare and medicaide, along with other social service programs, in addition to federal highway funds, etc are actual far more affecting of the typical US citizen than most state governments.  Why does the federal government affect us more than the state government?  What happened?

From the 57th paper: Again Madison argues that if the citizens of the country are willing to tolerate a legislature that makes laws which are not binding on the legislature themselves, then the people will tolerate anything but liberty.  Why do we allow our legislature to opt out of social security and create their own system of retirement, but not complain about it when they refuse to give us the same rights?  Why are they allowed to grant themselves a raise but not give every other american a tax break of equal percentage?  Wouldn't these be equal and tolerable?  What happened?

From the 62nd paper: Madison informs us that the Senate was not to be a popularly elected position but was to be appointed by each state government in order to balance the will of the people, the rights of the states and the tyranny of the government and thus keep everything in check.  This he argues would ensure that only those laws wanted by the people and concurred to by the states, without impinging on their sovereignty, would be passed.  Why did senators become popularly elected and why did states choose to give up this crucial part of limiting government? Look here for background on the 17th Amendment. What happened?

From the 68th paper: Hamilton tells us about the electoral college and the fact that the president was to be popularly elected from this college.  There was never to be any all votes in the state pass to one candidate or the other.  Rather the electoral college was to be a microcosm of the popular vote.  What happened?  With two elections in my voting life running contrary to the pure popular vote based on this skewing on the way the states handle the electoral college, one wonders if the constitution is still in effect?  What happened?

From the 84th paper: Hamilton again informs us of the despotism that exists when the writ of habeus corpus isn't practiced and governments confine persons by "secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten" and is therefore a "more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."  One immediately thinks about the current practice of detaining people in secret prisons or at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Are these yet another chink in the great experiment of representative government to show that the constitution is failing?  I am not a fan of the actions of these individuals, but they at least deserve a trial according to our constitution, otherwise we are in danger of our government using these same tactics on its citizens.  What has happened?

In conclusion, my eyes have been opened and my mind is asking, "What happened?  How have we drifted so far from the intent of the Framers of the Constitution? And Why don't we care?"  I leave these thoughts with you and look forward to any dialogue that may come.