Do we really need a Senate?

[M14 Shooter]

Read the Constitution.

How do you think they represent the people?

Merely reading the Constitution is insufficient. You must put it in context by discovering the purpose of the Senate... why it has a 6 year term instead of a two year term.... why each state has equal representation in the Senate instead of representation based upon population.

The House was intended as the peoples voice, with elections every 2 years the representatives would be responsive to the current desires of the electorate. The Senate was intended as a brake upon the emotions of the moment... they were intentionally removed to a degree from the political reality of reelection pressures with a 6 year term -- to do what is right instead of what is politically expedient. You may disagree that this has occurred, but the reality is you are not going to change it.

That's true at least; it isn't going to change. What we, as Americans, seem to believe is this...

Those who were at the first Constitutional Convention in 1787 were totally without flaws; that they crafted the one and ONLY document that has every answer that was ever asked and that would ever be asked...ever; that those who contributed were, amazingly, totally without personal interest, totally without bias, totally without preconceived notions of what the country should look like and that, without anything to go on, got it exactly right on the very first try with only a few modifications to follow in the form of amendments.

You find the same sort of argument about the Bible..."It is written..." a long time ago so it must be true; right?

You wouldn't have a business plan that is over 5 years old yet somehow we as Americans believe that having one that is over 200 years old is perfectly fine.

God Bless America.

See Article V, and Amendment X.

Whine all you want - and really, that's all you're doing - as the Senate isn't going anywhere.

 

[legaleagle_45]

That's true at least; it isn't going to change. What we, as Americans, seem to believe is this...

Those who were at the first Constitutional Convention in 1787 were totally without flaws; that they crafted the one and ONLY document that has every answer that was ever asked and that would ever be asked...ever; that those who contributed were, amazingly, totally without personal interest, totally without bias, totally without preconceived notions of what the country should look like and that, without anything to go on, got it exactly right on the very first try with only a few modifications to follow in the form of amendments.

You find the same sort of argument about the Bible..."It is written..." a long time ago so it must be true; right?

You wouldn't have a business plan that is over 5 years old yet somehow we as Americans believe that having one that is over 200 years old is perfectly fine.

God Bless America.

Obviously the Constituion is not perfect.... and the Constituion itself was filled with compromises. The Senate was one of them., as was the 3/5ths compromise , as was the allowance of a continuing international slave trade for 20 years... I could go on, but what is truly remarkable is that they actually agreed on something and got it ratified. Without those compromises it would not have occured

The Constituion also has Article V which allows for the amendment of same. If you read it carefully you will find an exception to the usual rules for an amendment and which deals directly with the Senate. Basically, and in order to change the Senate, you will need a unanimous consent of all the states, not merely 3/4ths as is the case with other amendments.

So, I will say again, you have absolutely no chance of obtaining your goal. You might as well be wishing for unicorns and rainbows.

 

[usmcstinger]

What a stupid question to ask.

 

[candycorn]

That's true at least; it isn't going to change. What we, as Americans, seem to believe is this...

Those who were at the first Constitutional Convention in 1787 were totally without flaws; that they crafted the one and ONLY document that has every answer that was ever asked and that would ever be asked...ever; that those who contributed were, amazingly, totally without personal interest, totally without bias, totally without preconceived notions of what the country should look like and that, without anything to go on, got it exactly right on the very first try with only a few modifications to follow in the form of amendments.

You find the same sort of argument about the Bible..."It is written..." a long time ago so it must be true; right?

You wouldn't have a business plan that is over 5 years old yet somehow we as Americans believe that having one that is over 200 years old is perfectly fine.

God Bless America.

Obviously the Constituion is not perfect.... and the Constituion itself was filled with compromises. The Senate was one of them., as was the 3/5ths compromise , as was the allowance of a continuing international slave trade for 20 years... I could go on, but what is truly remarkable is that they actually agreed on something and got it ratified. Without those compromises it would not have occured

The Constituion also has Article V which allows for the amendment of same. If you read it carefully you will find an exception to the usual rules for an amendment and which deals directly with the Senate. Basically, and in order to change the Senate, you will need a unanimous consent of all the states, not merely 3/4ths as is the case with other amendments.

So, I will say again, you have absolutely no chance of obtaining your goal. You might as well be wishing for unicorns and rainbows.

Yes, I know that; the Senate isn't going anywhere but not because of it's own merit; but because we're afraid to look at the 200+ year old document, admit it's flaws, and address them.

The truth is that the House is every bit as capable of assuming the Senatorial duties and most Americans wouldn't notice a difference except there would be far more signings of bills than talking heads on TV blaming the other side.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The truth is that the House is every bit as capable of assuming the Senatorial duties....

This can only be said by someone who did not pass their US government classes.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The truth is that the House is every bit as capable of assuming the Senatorial duties and most Americans wouldn't notice a difference except there would be far more signings of bills than talking heads on TV blaming the other side.

The fact that there would be far more signings of bills is something that will in fact be noticed. You seem to think that is necessarily a good thing. Do you think it a good thing to pass a law which bans the sale of 32 oz soft drinks? How about a law which require Pi to equal exactly 3?

"It could probably be shown in facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain

"No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Congress is the finest body of men money can buy." -- Will Rogers

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

You want to get rid of it? Get an amendment past the Congress and approved by 37 States. Or are you suggesting we ignore the Constitution?

 

[legaleagle_45]

You want to get rid of it? Get an amendment past the Congress and approved by 37 States. Or are you suggesting we ignore the Constitution?

You may want to take a look at Article V again... when you mess with the Senate the amendment process is a bit different... just saying

PS, 3/4ths of 50 = 37.5, thus we now need 38 states to ratify a normal Constituional Amend, not 37.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You want to get rid of it? Get an amendment past the Congress and approved by 37 States. Or are you suggesting we ignore the Constitution?

You may want to take a look at Article V again... when you mess with the Senate the amendment process is a bit different... just saying

PS, 3/4ths of 50 = 37.5, thus we now need 38 states to ratify a normal Constituional Amend, not 37.

In any case Candy corn does this every month or so comes up with some suggestion that requires an amendment and then waxes poetic about how old and useless the Constitution is. Rather then actually admit the document provides for changes.

 

[candycorn]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

You want to get rid of it? Get an amendment past the Congress and approved by 37 States. Or are you suggesting we ignore the Constitution?

Just wondering aloud...some think it's a good idea; some not.

 

[Avatar4321]

If we over-turned the 17th amendment to the Constitution and returned the appointment of Senators to be decided by the state, not the general public, you would understand the need for them much better. We'd also have a much better run givernment. Progressives messed up the way our givernment was designed by the founding fathers.

Having a state legislature appoint senators smacks of cronyism and elitism. The direct election of senators seems a lot more in keeping with the ideals of democracy to me.

But that's just MHO.

But that's just the problem. The Senate was supposed to be a representative of the state, not the people. That's precisely why we have this inbalance in power. Because the States can't check the Federal government and instead of having a tripod we have essentially the Feds and the people. And the Feds run right over the people.

When the state legislators picked Senators, if you wanted to buy the Senate, you had to bribe a bunch of people in countless states. Now you can just donate directly to the Senator you want to buy.

It's not a coincidence that when the Senate was turned over to the people instead of the state that the Federal Government started growing like crazy. The State lost the power to keep the Feds from passing unfunded mandate after unfunded mandate.

 

[Avatar4321]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

You want to get rid of it? Get an amendment past the Congress and approved by 37 States. Or are you suggesting we ignore the Constitution?

Good luck getting the Senators to agree to abolishing their position.

While we are at it, let's reorganize the government completely to form the First Galactic Empire.

 

[freedombecki]

Senators were intended to be there to represent the States.

Now, they're supported by out-of-state moguls who want to swing their votes away from the people of the state under the umbrella of the "little people" from whom they get votes for cheap and not-so-cheap favors.

 

[Cookie]

In any case Candy corn does this every month or so comes up with some suggestion that requires an amendment and then waxes poetic about how old and useless the Constitution is. Rather then actually admit the document provides for changes.

Are you accusing CandyCorn of having PMS induced insanity?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In any case Candy corn does this every month or so comes up with some suggestion that requires an amendment and then waxes poetic about how old and useless the Constitution is. Rather then actually admit the document provides for changes.

Are you accusing CandyCorn of having PMS induced insanity?

In her case, the PMS mitigates the insanity.

 

[candycorn]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

You want to get rid of it? Get an amendment past the Congress and approved by 37 States. Or are you suggesting we ignore the Constitution?

Good luck getting the Senators to agree to abolishing their position.

While we are at it, let's reorganize the government completely to form the First Galactic Empire.

The spirit of the thread was just to pose the question. I've yet to hear anything other than "Well, the Constitution says we're supposed to have one so we should have one." Nobody has pointed out--it doesn't mean that they can't; they just haven't yet--what conflicts of interest would arise if the House Judiciary Committee took over vettting judges or selecting the VP in case of a tie in the electoral college.

Hell, if you really want to keep these 100 geezers around; just add 100 seats to the House and let them all fight it out. I tend to think that there would be no great influx of talent myself but...whatever.

I do find it amusing that those who decry the federal over-reach seem to be the most vocal proponents of keeping the status-quo. You'd figure these chairborne warriors who are constantly in fear of Uncle Sam would welcome the chance to whack off 100 useless speed bumps.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You want to get rid of it? Get an amendment past the Congress and approved by 37 States. Or are you suggesting we ignore the Constitution?

Good luck getting the Senators to agree to abolishing their position.

While we are at it, let's reorganize the government completely to form the First Galactic Empire.

The spirit of the thread was just to pose the question. I've yet to hear anything other than "Well, the Constitution says we're supposed to have one so we should have one."

This is a lie.
Several posters have explained why we have, and why we need a Senate.
You simply refuse to accept these reasons.

 

[Antares]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

This is EXACTLY why they should never have stopped teaching Consitutional Studies in high school.

 

[candycorn]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

This is EXACTLY why they should never have stopped teaching Consitutional Studies in high school.

What can't the House do that the Senate currently does?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

1) The people have NO control over the House. There is one representative for every 700,000 Americans, when it used to be 1:25,000.

2) Its' role was to represent the interests of the State, and functioned quite well in that capacity prior to 1913 (the passage of the 17th Amendment, making Senators elected by popular vote).

3) It still serves as a secondary cockblock to tyranny of the majority. It is meant to be inefficient, the bi-cameral system is specifically designed to be cumbersome.