Abolish the Senate?

[michiganFats]

First of all, don't say that "we'll agree to disagree", that makes you a pussy. Second, you are the one who caused the disagreement in the first place, so don't try to say that you are "merely an observer". That makes you a "pussy". Any way you slice it, you're a pussy

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can go all Editec all you want. You still didn't address the original objections to your posts in this thread. So fuck you.

My understanding of the original objections were that the Senate exists to preserve State's rights at the federal level. If that is incorrect, tell me what you want me to try to address. If that is correct, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In either case I'm going to sleep for now. Thanks for your input in any case.

No, the Senate was created to represent the states interests at the federal level. Our argument is that the 17th amendment should be repealed and the Senate returned to it's original purpose, rather than be abolished as you believe.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

It also occurs to me that conservatives might have a specific objection to getting rid of the Senate, as rural populations (more conservatives) are given more representation in the Senate than urban populations.

You can go all Editec all you want. You still didn't address the original objections to your posts in this thread. So fuck you.

My understanding of the original objections were that the Senate exists to preserve State's rights at the federal level. If that is incorrect, tell me what you want me to try to address. If that is correct, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In either case I'm going to sleep for now. Thanks for your input in any case.

No, the Senate was created to represent the states interests at the federal level. Our argument is that the 17th amendment should be repealed and the Senate returned to it's original purpose, rather than be abolished as you believe.

Hm, so instead of direct election, you have State legislatures appointing US Senators. If I recall correctly, this was done due to the Framer's distrust of the people. This was understandable, as nobody had experience with a democratic republic on that scale. It is true you had stated you wanted the 17th amendment repealed, but there was no detailed explanation on why.

As for why the 17th amendment was passed, after being rejected only by Utah before being ratified, Wikipedia says:

This process [before the 17th Amendment] worked without major problems through the mid-1850s, when the American Civil War was in the offing. Because of increasing partisanship and strife, many state legislatures failed to elect Senators for prolonged periods... there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. Beginning in 1899, Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years... After the turn of the century, support of Senatorial election reform grew rapidly. William Randolph Hearst expanded his publishing empire with Cosmopolitan, which became a respected general-interest magazine at that time, and which championed the cause of direct election with muckraking articles and strong advocacy of reform. Hearst hired a veteran reporter, David Graham Phillips, who wrote scathing pieces on Senators, portraying them as corrupt pawns of industrialists and financiers. The pieces became a series titled "The Treason of the Senate," which appeared in several monthly issues of the magazine in 1906.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also briefly speaks of support for the repeal of the 17th Amendment:

Several states' rights advocates have called for the Seventeenth Amendment's repeal.[4] For example, then-U.S. Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, shortly after announcing his intention to retire from the Senate, made this statement:

Direct elections of Senators … allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.[5]

Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, wrote:

The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the last nails to be pounded into the coffin of federalism in America.[6]

Some critics of the amendment blame it, together with the Sixteenth Amendment, for the general expansion of the authority of the United States Congress in the 20th century.

So the argument boils down to State's rights or checking the power the Federal government, which seem like closely related issues to me, unless you have a different justification than they mentioned. I still contend, as illustrated in my international body analogy in a previous post, that having a Constitution that is actually followed is the way to preserve a sovereign nation/States rights. The 3/4 of States required to amend the Constitution protects against abuse by more populous states.

In practice, the Senate has protected regional, privileged minorities while harming vulnerable minorities. For example, between 1800 and 1860, 8 anti-slavery bills passed the House but were killed in the Senate ("Political Stability and Civil War: Institutions, Commitment, and American Democrary," in Analytic Narratives, Robert Bates, Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean- Laurent Resenthal, and Barry R. Weingast, eds. (Princeton University Press, 1998).). The tradition of Southern subversion of minority civil rights continued well after the Civil War.

As part of the Connecticut Compromise, the Senate was necessary to get the small states on board in the first place in a time when they weren't sure if they wanted an aristocratic or a democratic republic, as evidenced by how they limited suffrage. It was a practical decision, not a principled one. Should we really feel beholden to such ancient covenants forged when most States did not even exist? We should care about how it serves us now and I haven't heard a specific argument on how it does that.