Should the U.S. Senate be abolished?

[nodoginnafight]

What an un-American premise.

What a bunch of whiny hairdressers - when they find themselves in the minority, they want to re-invent our system of government.

What kind of parents raised such spoiled brats - this is the political equivalent of of throwing a tandrum in the supermarket floor 'cause momma wouldn't buy you a toy ...

 

[The Rabbi]

yes let's repress the masses more! grand idea

Politics went downhill as soon as that melarkey was enacted. The Founders recognized the folly of pure democracy and designed teh senate as an instrument for counter acting the stupidity of the masses of people. Returning to that standard would improve governance. I mean, how wise a decision can there be from people who cannot identify the first president of the US, or any other relevant fact of American history?

the founders did not provide for direct election of senators due to pressure from the "states rights" bunch, not to protect the people from themselves! That same "states rights' bunch also championed slavery as a viable economic system.

Where were those liberty loving Conservatives then?

Aha. You are "Nosmo, King of the Non-Sequitur.
Of course there was distrust of the populace. That is why we have the electoral college as well.
The same "states rights bunch" as you inaccurately put it, included Rhode Island and Delaware. THey weren't slave states. And what slavery has to do with the Senate I dont know. You have earned your title, oh King!

 

[Nosmo King]

Politics went downhill as soon as that melarkey was enacted. The Founders recognized the folly of pure democracy and designed teh senate as an instrument for counter acting the stupidity of the masses of people. Returning to that standard would improve governance. I mean, how wise a decision can there be from people who cannot identify the first president of the US, or any other relevant fact of American history?

the founders did not provide for direct election of senators due to pressure from the "states rights" bunch, not to protect the people from themselves! That same "states rights' bunch also championed slavery as a viable economic system.

Where were those liberty loving Conservatives then?

Aha. You are "Nosmo, King of the Non-Sequitur.
Of course there was distrust of the populace. That is why we have the electoral college as well.
The same "states rights bunch" as you inaccurately put it, included Rhode Island and Delaware. THey weren't slave states. And what slavery has to do with the Senate I dont know. You have earned your title, oh King!

Rhode Island and Delaware were state's rights advocates due to their physical size, not their desire to hold human beings in perpetual bondage.

The remaining state's rights states just wanted to profit from labor they owned rather than hired.

And the electoral college votes based on the proportion of popular votes cast within an individual state, not on the whim of the members of that electoral college.

 

[Oddball]

I think so, no question.

We have Senators who represent 800,000 people making decisions for the 300 million of the rest of us.

Do you care about the Constitution and our Republican form of government? If so, I am not seeing it in this post. I see someone advocating that it be further bastardized, because you seem to believe in mob rule.

What you suggested would require an amendment to the Constitution. You should have researched your thought some first.

I should have researched my thought first?

Are you an idiot? Of course it would require an amendment to the Constitution. So what?

The Senate is the source of most of the evil in our body politic. They are completely controlled by corporate lobbyists.

Something closer to goverment of the people is "mob rule" in your mind.

The idiot her is you, idiot.

If you had any idea of the reasons for setting up the checks and balances of the small "r" republican system, you wouldn't be making such glaringly ignorant statements.

 

[The Rabbi]

the founders did not provide for direct election of senators due to pressure from the "states rights" bunch, not to protect the people from themselves! That same "states rights' bunch also championed slavery as a viable economic system.

Where were those liberty loving Conservatives then?

Aha. You are "Nosmo, King of the Non-Sequitur.
Of course there was distrust of the populace. That is why we have the electoral college as well.
The same "states rights bunch" as you inaccurately put it, included Rhode Island and Delaware. THey weren't slave states. And what slavery has to do with the Senate I dont know. You have earned your title, oh King!

Rhode Island and Delaware were state's rights advocates due to their physical size, not their desire to hold human beings in perpetual bondage.

The remaining state's rights states just wanted to profit from labor they owned rather than hired.

And the electoral college votes based on the proportion of popular votes cast within an individual state, not on the whim of the members of that electoral college.

OK so you're initial post was wrong and you admit it.
We're on the same page here.

 

[Polk]

Okay first problem with that nonsense is senators represent the interest of their states not necessarily any given bunch of people. Hell until the 16th amendment they were appointed by the states. The chief purpose of the senate was and is to prevent states like NY and Ca. from being the be all and end all when it came to running the country.

The govenment of this country was intended to be a Republic in which the rights of the less populpous states would adequately be defended against the overweening tyrrany of the more populous states. That is also in essence why we have the electoral college.

Do you even stop to think before you speak? Your argument is that "one man, one vote" is tyranny, but giving some people extra votes protects freedom. That's a pretty absurd argument.

 

[Polk]

Politics went downhill as soon as that melarkey was enacted. The Founders recognized the folly of pure democracy and designed teh senate as an instrument for counter acting the stupidity of the masses of people. Returning to that standard would improve governance. I mean, how wise a decision can there be from people who cannot identify the first president of the US, or any other relevant fact of American history?

the founders did not provide for direct election of senators due to pressure from the "states rights" bunch, not to protect the people from themselves! That same "states rights' bunch also championed slavery as a viable economic system.

Where were those liberty loving Conservatives then?

Aha. You are "Nosmo, King of the Non-Sequitur.
Of course there was distrust of the populace. That is why we have the electoral college as well.
The same "states rights bunch" as you inaccurately put it, included Rhode Island and Delaware. THey weren't slave states. And what slavery has to do with the Senate I dont know. You have earned your title, oh King!

You'd learn a lot if you went back and read the floor debates from the Convention. The battle over proportional representation versus flat representation had nothing to do a philosophical dispute. It was a battle between two factions looking out for their own interests.

Furthermore, your knowledge of slavery in this country is lacking. While slavery was banned in Rhode Island in 1784, the state was still a center of the slave trade due to it's large shipping industry. Delaware was a slave state. As for the relationship between slavery and the Senate, the entry of new states into the Union up until 1850 was built on the idea of maintaining a balance between the number of slave states and free states.

 

[DiamondDave]

Okay first problem with that nonsense is senators represent the interest of their states not necessarily any given bunch of people. Hell until the 16th amendment they were appointed by the states. The chief purpose of the senate was and is to prevent states like NY and Ca. from being the be all and end all when it came to running the country.

The govenment of this country was intended to be a Republic in which the rights of the less populpous states would adequately be defended against the overweening tyrrany of the more populous states. That is also in essence why we have the electoral college.

Do you even stop to think before you speak? Your argument is that "one man, one vote" is tyranny, but giving some people extra votes protects freedom. That's a pretty absurd argument.

Yes... direct democracy can and often does lead to the tyranny of the masses.... which is precisely one of the things the founding fathers were trying to protect against

 

[Polk]

Also, the large and small divide was separate from the free and slave divide. Virginia was a slave state, but also in favor of a more centralized government. Massachusetts was a free state and held the same position. New York was a free state and favored a continuation of the Articles. North Carolina was a slave state that felt the same way.

 

[Polk]

Okay first problem with that nonsense is senators represent the interest of their states not necessarily any given bunch of people. Hell until the 16th amendment they were appointed by the states. The chief purpose of the senate was and is to prevent states like NY and Ca. from being the be all and end all when it came to running the country.

The govenment of this country was intended to be a Republic in which the rights of the less populpous states would adequately be defended against the overweening tyrrany of the more populous states. That is also in essence why we have the electoral college.

Do you even stop to think before you speak? Your argument is that "one man, one vote" is tyranny, but giving some people extra votes protects freedom. That's a pretty absurd argument.

Yes... direct democracy can and often does lead to the tyranny of the masses.... which is precisely one of the things the founding fathers were trying to protect against

That's a strawman. No one in this thread has argued in favor of a direct democracy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Do you even stop to think before you speak? Your argument is that "one man, one vote" is tyranny, but giving some people extra votes protects freedom. That's a pretty absurd argument.

Yes... direct democracy can and often does lead to the tyranny of the masses.... which is precisely one of the things the founding fathers were trying to protect against

That's a strawman. No one in this thread has argued in favor of a direct democracy.

And one-man-one-vote for every elected office can also lead to tyranny of the masses... which is also why the founding fathers put in the checks and balances in the different ways our branches were filled... it is why the electoral college is so necessary, and why the original setup of the election to congress and the senate was not inherently direct vote for each

 

[Polk]

Yes... direct democracy can and often does lead to the tyranny of the masses.... which is precisely one of the things the founding fathers were trying to protect against

That's a strawman. No one in this thread has argued in favor of a direct democracy.

And one-man-one-vote for every elected office can also lead to tyranny of the masses...

How can free and fair elections result in tyranny? The only arguments you can make in favor of that position are arguments that can be made against the process of having elections in general. Are you saying that there should not be elections at all?

which is also why the founding fathers put in the checks and balances in the different ways our branches were filled... it is why the electoral college is so necessary, and why the original setup of the election to congress and the senate was not inherently direct vote for each

I'm going to make the same suggestion to you I made to another poster earlier in this thread. Go back and read the convention debates. You'll see that there wasn't some broad philosophical argument about checks and balances underlying the decision-making process. Two sides struggled to implement a system which they felt would better serve their interests, and eventually agreed on a compromise.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The problem is how do you hold the congress accountable to the constitution

That what the judiciary is for idiot.

 

[DiveCon]

Okay first problem with that nonsense is senators represent the interest of their states not necessarily any given bunch of people. Hell until the 16th amendment they were appointed by the states. The chief purpose of the senate was and is to prevent states like NY and Ca. from being the be all and end all when it came to running the country.

The govenment of this country was intended to be a Republic in which the rights of the less populpous states would adequately be defended against the overweening tyrrany of the more populous states. That is also in essence why we have the electoral college.

Do you even stop to think before you speak? Your argument is that "one man, one vote" is tyranny, but giving some people extra votes protects freedom. That's a pretty absurd argument.

the senate was to be a check/balance to the house
same reason we dont have direct election of POTUS
each branch was to be created by different means as a check and balance

 

[DiveCon]

What an un-American premise.

What a bunch of whiny hairdressers - when they find themselves in the minority, they want to re-invent our system of government.

What kind of parents raised such spoiled brats - this is the political equivalent of of throwing a tandrum in the supermarket floor 'cause momma wouldn't buy you a toy ...

i have a hint for you, Chris, the starter of this thread, is a liberal, and he voted for democrats, so how is this a "losers want to change everything" in the sense of the last election?
i will grant you that Chris, himself, IS a loser, but no one on the conservative side wants to "do away" with the Senate, we just want it back to the states appointing them like it originally was
and remember, most states are controlled by democrats right now

 

[MaggieMae]

I think so, no question.

We have Senators who represent 800,000 people making decisions for the 300 million of the rest of us.

Better than trying to have 800,000 people in one room trying to make a decision.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think the Senate should be strengthened by repealing the XVII Amendment.

Right, that'll help. The reason it was enacted in the first place was to avoid the practice of political machines, backed by corporate wealth, which influenced state legislators who originally appointed Senators. Aren't you the people yelling the loudest about corruptive influences? Now you want to return that power to state legislators? How would you like the Califiornia Assembly to appoint all its U.S. Senators? I trust that would be a no.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think the Senate should be strengthened by repealing the XVII Amendment.

yes let's repress the masses more! grand idea

Politics went downhill as soon as that melarkey was enacted. The Founders recognized the folly of pure democracy and designed teh senate as an instrument for counter acting the stupidity of the masses of people. Returning to that standard would improve governance. I mean, how wise a decision can there be from people who cannot identify the first president of the US, or any other relevant fact of American history?

Well...one could assume that eventually newly appointed Senators would also lack the intelligence of which you speak. That's not a problem with the structure of the Senate, it's with the disinterest in maintaining even the most basic educational standards anymore. Not enough PEOPLE care enough to force the Congress to do something about it. And even when they do, Republicans want better education but don't want to pay for it. So we're breeding stupider people who will become stupider Senators.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, the Senate shouldnt be absolished. It should be restored to how it was originally framed. The Senate was not meant to represent the people. It was meant to represent the states. Without that balance by the states, we have had nothing but ever growing federal government.

However, I'm all for firing every Senator and starting over again.

The assumption is that the same attitudes prevail today that existed when Article I was written. I seriously doubt that in 2009, the State of Texas really cares much about the plight of the State of Michigan, which is in dire straits economically, while Texas still basks in wealth.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think the Senate should be strengthened by repealing the XVII Amendment.

You are 100% correct. The 17th amendment eliminated the balance of power between the states and the federal government, allowing for massive expansion outside of Constitutional restrictions. We can't shrink the federal government back down to size until we repeal the 17th amendment and restore the senate seats back to the control of the State General Assemblies where they were meant to be.

You guys are such dreamers. It's intriguing, really.

The 17th Amendment did no such thing. If anything, it attempted to RESTORE the balance of power, since it became so bad that the U.S. Senate was once called "The Millionnaires Club." And if you thought it through, you would KNOW that is exactly what would happen again.