Do we really need a Senate?

[thereisnospoon]

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.

That pretty much tells the story to the libs on here who think Congress exists to do the bidding of the POTUS..."Pass legislation"....
The long and the short of it is the Founders set up out system so that whatever business the Congress took up would be carefully examined and the process was made to be deliberately slow.
Again, the concept of limited government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Instead of asking questions, take a dive into doing some research on your own.
I will get you started.
The House members represent the people. The Senate made up of 100 members( two for each state) represents the interests of the individual states. The purpose of having this chamber is to insure each state has equal representation in government.
The rest of the homework you can do yourself.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

how is repealing the 17th amendment and restoring the Senate to the States maintaining the Status quo?

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Instead of asking questions, take a dive into doing some research on your own.
I will get you started.
The House members represent the people. The Senate made up of 100 members( two for each state) represents the interests of the individual states. The purpose of having this chamber is to insure each state has equal representation in government.
The rest of the homework you can do yourself.

The problem is since the passage of the 17th amendment, it hasnt represented the States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

As long as that overreach is conservative and reactionary, the right is perfectly fine with it.

 

[jwoodie]

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.

Out of state campaign money further reduces the principle of the Senate representing the States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

I'd guess there are many would truly wouldn't care if we shit-canned the House and Senate and turned everything over to Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning. That's the direction we're going, anyway.

We could all have pictures of them on our wall, and gather the family together in the evening to thank our Leaders for all they do for us, stuff like that.

.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

No one is advocating any such thing, and we’re ‘heading’ in no such direction.

 

[Avatar4321]

.

I'd guess there are many would truly wouldn't care if we shit-canned the House and Senate and turned everything over to Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning. That's the direction we're going, anyway.

We could all have pictures of them on our wall, and gather the family together in the evening to thank our Leaders for all they do for us, stuff like that.

.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

No one is advocating any such thing, and we’re ‘heading’ in no such direction.

You seriously don't see how suggesting we abolish a chamber of Congress moves us towards turning everything over to the Emperor?

 

[Wyld Kard]

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.

We have Obama and the U.N. so both the House AND Senate are redundant.

Obama is a walking contradiction, and America could so much better if we sever our ties to the UN.

 

[Missourian]

Yes we do. The entire point of the constitution is limiting the government’s powers and one key to that is the separation of powers. Combining the senate with the house only serves to consolidate that power.

Now, I would agree that one KEY job that the senate was supposed to fill has been obliterated and that is yet another problem that we face today. The entire point of the senate was that they were to represent the states interests and not the general people’s interests. The house was for the people, the senate was for the states. When we passed the 17th amendment, that entire concept was ruined and it lead to the current setup that we have now with the states being little more than extensions to federal power, not competing interests like they are supposed to be. This is more examples of divided powers coalescing. IMHO, that is really bad for the nation as a whole.

Here we are, 101 years after its ratification, and people such as yourself are now wondering what the senate is even for. Very unfortunate.

I tend to agree that BECAUSE of the 17th amendment, the senate has become largely redundant.

Senators are now only congressmen who hang around for 4 years longer.

 

[candycorn]

.

I'd guess there are many would truly wouldn't care if we shit-canned the House and Senate and turned everything over to Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning. That's the direction we're going, anyway.

We could all have pictures of them on our wall, and gather the family together in the evening to thank our Leaders for all they do for us, stuff like that.

.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

No one is advocating any such thing, and we’re ‘heading’ in no such direction.

You seriously don't see how suggesting we abolish a chamber of Congress moves us towards turning everything over to the Emperor?

I dont. We would still have representation through house members who are more beholden to their district such as it is.

 

[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.

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.

That pretty much tells the story to the libs on here who think Congress exists to do the bidding of the POTUS..."Pass legislation"....
The long and the short of it is the Founders set up out system so that whatever business the Congress took up would be carefully examined and the process was made to be deliberately slow.
Again, the concept of limited government.

No.

There is a difference between passing legislation and enacting it; signing it into law.

Congress's only role in lawmaking is to pass legislation.

We have thousand page bills spending hundreds of billions of dollars. A lot of times the Senators arent reading the bills...many couldnt stay awake long enough to read half of one of them... If you think this is what the founders wanted, you dont know the founders. That goes without saying

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

That pretty much tells the story to the libs on here who think Congress exists to do the bidding of the POTUS..."Pass legislation"....
The long and the short of it is the Founders set up out system so that whatever business the Congress took up would be carefully examined and the process was made to be deliberately slow.
Again, the concept of limited government.

No.

There is a difference between passing legislation and enacting it; signing it into law.

Congress's only role in lawmaking is to pass legislation.

We have thousand page bills spending hundreds of billions of dollars. A lot of times the Senators arent reading the bills...many couldnt stay awake long enough to read half of one of them... If you think this is what the founders wanted, you dont know the founders. That goes without saying

That means government is too fucking big. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

Also, we have the Federalist Papers, ratifications debates (in the several States) and many other contemporary publications that affirm the view that you denied.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

The Senate should go back to the old system where the individual state governments would appoint 2 Senators to serve in DC. The rules also allowed for the recall of Senators at the discretion of an individual state.

Disagree.

It adds another needless layer of bueauracracy (sp?) to an already bloated Federal Government. Have the House take over the Senate's duties if they aren't going to do them.

It doesn't add a damn thing to any bureaucracy, and it doesn't add any bloat to the federal government. The original Constitution established that state legislatures would select senators, and those senators would represent the interests of the individual state legislators.

However, if the six year term of a senator ended with a state legislaure of the other party, then his senatorial career would probably be over. That didn't sit well with politicians who desired to maintain their political power, and they set about to get a constitutional amendment that suited their purpose.

That one simple change has created the vast majority of America's political problems, and has voided the independence of the states.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Senate should go back to the old system where the individual state governments would appoint 2 Senators to serve in DC. The rules also allowed for the recall of Senators at the discretion of an individual state.

Disagree.

It adds another needless layer of bueauracracy (sp?) to an already bloated Federal Government. Have the House take over the Senate's duties if they aren't going to do them.

It doesn't add a damn thing to any bureaucracy, and it doesn't add any bloat to the federal government. The original Constitution established that state legislatures would select senators, and those senators would represent the interests of the individual state legislators.

However, if the six year term of a senator ended with a state legislaure of the other party, then his senatorial career would probably be over. That didn't sit well with politicians who desired to maintain their political power, and they set about to get a constitutional amendment that suited their purpose.

That one simple change has created the vast majority of America's political problems, and has voided the independence of the states.

Yes, the 17th Amendment and the decline of Nullification ended State Sovereignty. On the bright side, the 10th Amendment still exists.

Check out this thread I made a month or two ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...dment-nullification-redress-and-recourse.html

 

[Politico]

The Socialist Leftys would love that.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Which, to me, is rather funny because you could, technically, pass an amendment that changed the wording of Article V taking that section away and then another to change the senate. Underhanded, I know, but TECHNICALLY it would be correct and legal.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Who is this ‘some.’

So far, I think you are the only one to actually think it is a good idea.

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.

And we have yet to hear why abandoning it would be a good idea from you. So far, all we have heard is the FALSE claim that the senate does not pass bills. I note that you still have ignored the fact that the senate has passed MANY bills.

Then there is this ‘status quo’ statement that is meaningless. Not all change is a good idea, this least of all. Lastly, ‘whacking’ 100 of the legislators does exactly the opposite of what those ‘chairboren warriors’ you refer to in your ad homonym. None of those ‘small government’ people want to consolidate the power of the government into fewer hands. That does EXACTLY the opposite of what we want. Small government does not refer to the number of people involved in the decision making process but the power of those people collectively. The more you remove the closer you get to a dictator. ‘Speed bumps’ are a GOOD thing when referring to the government.

All in all, you have failed to understand the purpose of the legislative branch entirely and refused to address the fact that the senate is, indeed, passing legislation all the time.

 

[candycorn]

The Senate should go back to the old system where the individual state governments would appoint 2 Senators to serve in DC. The rules also allowed for the recall of Senators at the discretion of an individual state.

Disagree.

It adds another needless layer of bueauracracy (sp?) to an already bloated Federal Government. Have the House take over the Senate's duties if they aren't going to do them.

It doesn't add a damn thing to any bureaucracy, and it doesn't add any bloat to the federal government.

Sure it does...of course it does.

It means that whatever the "people's" house passes has to get approved by one person in the other house--the Majority Leader--then goes from her/his office to the sub-committee, then the full committee, then the entire Senate, then House/Senate conferees then ultimately to the President if it passes all of those hurdles. To think it doesn't ad to bureaucracy is frankly stupid. I'm sorry but the Senate is the textbook definition of bureaucracy.

As for bloating the government, earmarks and pork aside...it would save millions to shutter the needless body. Likely hundreds of millions.

The original Constitution established that state legislatures would select senators, and those senators would represent the interests of the individual state legislators.

However, if the six year term of a senator ended with a state legislaure of the other party, then his senatorial career would probably be over. That didn't sit well with politicians who desired to maintain their political power, and they set about to get a constitutional amendment that suited their purpose.

That one simple change has created the vast majority of America's political problems, and has voided the independence of the states.

I love how you guys think just because someone was born in the 1700's they are somehow squeaky clean and oh so more pure than those born in the 1940's. Politicians have been corrupt since the days of the Bible; this is nothing new. The men who wrote the Constitution were corrupt to some degree as were the Radical Republicans, the Solid South, the Reagan Democrats, the Clinton Republicans, as is our current Congress. Had there been the same scrutiny placed on the 1780's members of the Continental Congress and the populous had the same sensibilities that they had today, our contemporaries then would have the same opinions.

Every 6 years we vote to return about 80% of the Senators. It has nothing to do with the 17th Amendment.

Direct election of your representatives is a good thing.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Who is this ‘some.’

So far, I think you are the only one to actually think it is a good idea.

You shouldn't think that.

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 vetting 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.

And we have yet to hear why abandoning it would be a good idea from you. So far, all we have heard is the FALSE claim that the senate does not pass bills. I note that you still have ignored the fact that the senate has passed MANY bills.

Ah...well I did explain it.

The People's House (with whom I disagree with on most things currently) will pass legislation and if the President doesn't like it, he/she must veto the bill. Then the house over-rides or the legislation dies.

Currently, the House passes legislation and if Harry Reid doesn't like it, the bill dies right then and there. If Harry Reid does like it but there aren't 60 votes for it, then the bill may suffer a filibuster from someone.

Barack Obama doesn't have to make a tough call on whether or not to veto it. And what we hear from this President is "Call your congressman and senator".

It's a fruitless exercise.

Then there is this ‘status quo’ statement that is meaningless. Not all change is a good idea, this least of all. Lastly, ‘whacking’ 100 of the legislators does exactly the opposite of what those ‘chairboren warriors’ you refer to in your ad homonym. None of those ‘small government’ people want to consolidate the power of the government into fewer hands. That does EXACTLY the opposite of what we want.

Small government does not refer to the number of people involved in the decision making process but the power of those people collectively. The more you remove the closer you get to a dictator. ‘Speed bumps’ are a GOOD thing when referring to the government.

All in all, you have failed to understand the purpose of the legislative branch entirely and refused to address the fact that the senate is, indeed, passing legislation all the time.

It's good to see you think the Congress is clicking along just fine and dandy. Amazingly Senators don't see it that way in some cases. One only need to look at Jim DeMint and Evan Buyh (sp?) and all of the retirements. It's pretty obvious that a significant number of those inside the Tent think it's a sham too.

You make some good points; maybe "small" doesn't mean "small"--I guess that's a point and another needless layer of committee meetings, lobbyists funded orgies of waste and fraud, corruption on both sides of the aisle that would shock and stun anyone who could stand to look at it is a good thing. Who knew?