Is the senate a fair form of Governing?

[ThinkCritically]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Unless we're going to repeal the 17th Amendment, which is highly unlikely, we may as well abolish the Senate as it no longer serves the purpose for which it was created.

 

[nitroz]

no, It's not. Congress is only there to make money now, not to do their jobs.

 

[Artevelde]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

It's a pretty fundamental part of the compromise that formed the basis for creating the Federal Union and the Constitution in the first place. Scrapping that is a bit like deciding to go back on the essence of a deal you've made. As long as the US is going to remain a federal state some such mechanism will have to exist. So better keep it.

 

[Unkotare]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

Seriously? You never studied the form and function of the US government (not to mention history)? Really?

 

[editec]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

That's why we have a bicameral legislature, TC.

 

[Missourian]

We made a huge mistake taking the appointment of Senators away from the States.

Having both the Senate and the House elected by popular vote directly influenced the erosion of state sovereignty referenced in the OP.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

 

[Jackson]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

That's why we have the House of Representatives.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

---
"The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national: in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national."

Federal v. Consolidated Government: James Madison, Federalist, no. 39, 253--57


"The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to create a federal system that promotes strong national power in certain spheres, yet recognizes that the states are sovereign in other spheres. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." However, it soon became clear that Hamilton and Madison had different ideas about how the national government should work in practice. Hamilton, along with other "federalists" including Washington, Adams, and Marshall, sought to implement an expansive interpretation of national powers at the states' expense. Madison, along with other "states' rights" advocates including Thomas Jefferson, sought to bolster state powers."

3. Federalism: U.S. v. The States, Topic Overview

 

[Peach]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

your opinion(s) are flawed.

---

The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national: in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.

Federal v. Consolidated Government: James Madison, Federalist, no. 39, 253--57


The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to create a federal system that promotes strong national power in certain spheres, yet recognizes that the states are sovereign in other spheres. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." However, it soon became clear that Hamilton and Madison had different ideas about how the national government should work in practice. Hamilton, along with other "federalists" including Washington, Adams, and Marshall, sought to implement an expansive interpretation of national powers at the states' expense. Madison, along with other "states' rights" advocates including Thomas Jefferson, sought to bolster state powers.

3. Federalism: U.S. v. The States, Topic Overview

From # 70:

To the People of the State of New York:

THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.

 

[Peach]

From #9, Hamiliton again:

A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unless we're going to repeal the 17th Amendment, which is highly unlikely, we may as well abolish the Senate as it no longer serves the purpose for which it was created.

please ignore the ignorance of the above poster.

of course most sane people know the US Constitution gave the power to amend, so all amendments advance or take the place of original purpose. It is impossible to say because a clause has been amended it is no longer addresses an issue.

The Senate is part of: Bicameralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Senate was created in order to serve as a part of a mixed government. How the Senate is elected or how it's rules change, does not negate the original purpose for it's creation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Peach: Hamilton/Marshall vs Madison/Jefferson

The two main authors of the Federalist could never agree on things. What they did agree on is to put aside ideological differences in order to form a more perfect union

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Unless we're going to repeal the 17th Amendment, which is highly unlikely, we may as well abolish the Senate as it no longer serves the purpose for which it was created.

please ignore the ignorance of the above poster.

of course most sane people know the US Constitution gave the power to amend, so all amendments advance or take the place of original purpose. It is impossible to say because a clause has been amended it is no longer addresses an issue.

The Senate is part of: Bicameralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Senate was created in order to serve as a part of a mixed government. How the Senate is elected or how it's rules change, does not negate the original purpose for it's creation.

Actually, it does and you're the one showing your ignorance, Dainty. The Senate was created to be the states' place at the table. It was a check on the federal government to prevent it from becoming too powerful. If the Senate was still appointed by the governors and state legislatures today then all of these unfunded mandates they complain about like NCLB, ObamaCare, Real ID, etc would never have seen the light of the day. Additionally, the federal government would not be able to extort states, using their own money, into passing a 21 year old drinking age minimum, nuisance seat belt laws, and the former 55 MPH nationwide speed limit.

When we passed the 17th Amendment we shattered the balance of federalism and we are paying for it today with an ever encroaching federal government forcing states into submitting to its will with the aid of an activist judiciary.

 

[Peach]

Peach: Hamilton/Marshall vs Madison/Jefferson

The two main authors of the Federalist could never agree on things. What they did agree on is to put aside ideological differences in order to form a more perfect union

True, and I've read the men had fistfights over their differences. Hamilton of course went further. The Papers remain the most important "background" on the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

States have the same ‘rights’ now as they’ve always had. And they are no more or less ‘sovereign,’ either.

Conservatives incorrectly infer states have ‘lost’ rights when in fact states are simply compelled to abide the 14th Amendment, and are no longer allowed to violate the civil liberties of their citizens.

Otherwise, the problem with the Senate isn’t design, it’s execution.

 

[rightwinger]

Best thing we ever did was to make Senators appeal to we the people to get elected. Selecting Senators in back room deals is ripe with corruption

If you think you can convince the American people to give up their right to elect Senators you are sadly mistaken

 

[Navy1960]

Heres the problem with advocating for getting rid of the Senate. If your a Democrat then great, because it would mean for the most part the states with the largest populations would pretty much make all the laws. The last I checked most of those are generally Democrat, i.e. New York, Cali. . If your a Republican then getting rid of the Senate would mean the Republican party would have a long hard pull to win the house every two years and for the most part be left on the sidelines. The biggest issue is this, the small states would be left at the mercy of the large states and have no voice in Washington for its citizens. In that the founders of this nation understood the need and the reasoning for a Senate, so I would not look for it to be going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Artevelde]

Best thing we ever did was to make Senators appeal to we the people to get elected. Selecting Senators in back room deals is ripe with corruption

If you think you can convince the American people to give up their right to elect Senators you are sadly mistaken

I agree. Before direct election Senator's seats were often just sold. And recent Illinois experience points out that the same would happen today if Senators were not directly elected.