give it up kid, you are out of your league
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should the U.S. Senate be abolished?
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
The U.S. Senate was setup so every state had equal representation with two Senators each. If you feel that's unfair today because some states have more people and some less then you need to realize the Senate wasn't meant to represent the people, that's what the House is for. The Senate was supposed to represent the interests of the state. The way to resolve that issue would be to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to the way it's supposed to be.
- Thread starter
- #123
no they don't, MORON
they have equal voice in the SENATE
the way it was intended as a check and balance
No, they don't have an equal voice. 30,000,000 people voting for two seats is a clearly a smaller voice than 500,000 people voting for two seats. You could argue that denying them an equal voice is preferable for other reasons, but to claim they have an equal voice is asinine.
Exactly.
WRONGno they don't, MORON
they have equal voice in the SENATE
the way it was intended as a check and balance
No, they don't have an equal voice. 30,000,000 people voting for two seats is a clearly a smaller voice than 500,000 people voting for two seats. You could argue that denying them an equal voice is preferable for other reasons, but to claim they have an equal voice is asinine.
Exactly.
as usual you are a fucking moron
txlonghorn
Senior Member
- Mar 9, 2009
- 3,042
- 400
- 48
The U.S. Senate was setup so every state had equal representation with two Senators each. If you feel that's unfair today because some states have more people and some less then you need to realize the Senate wasn't meant to represent the people, that's what the House is for. The Senate was supposed to represent the interests of the state. The way to resolve that issue would be to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to the way it's supposed to be.
The balance is all wrong as is.
- Thread starter
- #127
LET'S ABOLISH THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY.
By Dylan Matthews
I hesitate to self-promote too shamelessly on Ezra's turf, but I have a new piece up at Campus Progress building on a guest-post I wrote here a few months ago. Basically, I want to get rid of the US Senate, and asked a number of constitutional law experts how one would go about doing that. Long story short, no one agrees on anything, least of all about whether the Senate is even capable of being abolished. An excerpt:
Sanford Levinson, a professor at the University of Texas law school and author of Our Undemocratic Constitution, thinks a Senate-abolishing amendment would not violate Article V. “The lack of any suffrage at all for any state would meet the formal requirements of "equal suffrage" (i.e., none for anyone),” he said. Daniel Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley, agrees, and argues that equal representation may not even be required. “One of my former colleagues once suggested to me that the Senate to which the equal representation cause refers no longer exists because of the 17th Amendment, providing for direct representation of Senators,” he recounts.
Opinions are not unanimous, however. Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School thinks Article V rules out this means of abolishing the Senate. “My view is that this would indeed require unanimity,” he explains. However, even if Article V precludes such an amendment, this raises another question. What if, before passing an amendment abolishing the Senate, another amendment passed removing the “equal suffrage” clause from Article V? Such a change would remove any impediment to abolishing the Senate, but the question remains of whether it would be legitimate.
Dorf doubts that it would be, and thinks the unanimous consent of the states would be needed, just as with abolishing the Senate through a single amendment. Levinson thinks the question is ultimately one of politics and not Constitutional interpretation. “My own view is that if the country were ever sufficiently outraged by the Senate to support an Article V amendment that was able to gain 2/3 support in Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states, no court would (or should) dare to block it on constitutional grounds,” he says. Larry Kramer, a constitutional law expert at Stanford Law School, agrees, but is not as confident in his prediction as Levinson. “It’s just not a question as to which there is a ‘right’ legal answer. There are legal arguments on both sides,” he explains, “But as with many or most constitutional issues, law and politics are inseparable and it would be a political resolution, with legal arguments as part of the rhetoric.”
EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect
By Dylan Matthews
I hesitate to self-promote too shamelessly on Ezra's turf, but I have a new piece up at Campus Progress building on a guest-post I wrote here a few months ago. Basically, I want to get rid of the US Senate, and asked a number of constitutional law experts how one would go about doing that. Long story short, no one agrees on anything, least of all about whether the Senate is even capable of being abolished. An excerpt:
Sanford Levinson, a professor at the University of Texas law school and author of Our Undemocratic Constitution, thinks a Senate-abolishing amendment would not violate Article V. “The lack of any suffrage at all for any state would meet the formal requirements of "equal suffrage" (i.e., none for anyone),” he said. Daniel Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley, agrees, and argues that equal representation may not even be required. “One of my former colleagues once suggested to me that the Senate to which the equal representation cause refers no longer exists because of the 17th Amendment, providing for direct representation of Senators,” he recounts.
Opinions are not unanimous, however. Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School thinks Article V rules out this means of abolishing the Senate. “My view is that this would indeed require unanimity,” he explains. However, even if Article V precludes such an amendment, this raises another question. What if, before passing an amendment abolishing the Senate, another amendment passed removing the “equal suffrage” clause from Article V? Such a change would remove any impediment to abolishing the Senate, but the question remains of whether it would be legitimate.
Dorf doubts that it would be, and thinks the unanimous consent of the states would be needed, just as with abolishing the Senate through a single amendment. Levinson thinks the question is ultimately one of politics and not Constitutional interpretation. “My own view is that if the country were ever sufficiently outraged by the Senate to support an Article V amendment that was able to gain 2/3 support in Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states, no court would (or should) dare to block it on constitutional grounds,” he says. Larry Kramer, a constitutional law expert at Stanford Law School, agrees, but is not as confident in his prediction as Levinson. “It’s just not a question as to which there is a ‘right’ legal answer. There are legal arguments on both sides,” he explains, “But as with many or most constitutional issues, law and politics are inseparable and it would be a political resolution, with legal arguments as part of the rhetoric.”
EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect
You'd need a Con-Con to abolish the Senate, you mental Lilliputian.Here is the amendment that is needed....
"The Senate shall be abolished, and all its powers transferred to the House of Representatives."
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
Here is the amendment that is needed....
"The Senate shall be abolished, and all its powers transferred to the House of Representatives."
Why? Repealing the 17th amendment makes far more sense than that.
- Thread starter
- #130
Assuming the House and Senate each own 50% of the legislative branch, a voting district in Wyoming has nearly 10 times the representation than a district in California. Across the US, a vote cast in a lightly populated State has greater value than a vote cast in a highly populated State. “All men are (supposed to be) created equal.” Federal law imposes itself equally on every American. Because of this, every vote cast on the federal level should carry equal value. We achieve this ideal when we cut the Senate out of the federal government and give the entire legislature to its rightful owners, the House of Representatives.
Defenders of the status quo claim that citizens from lightly populated States need the Senate for protection against unwanted "Big State" legislation. This is a false assumption because the divisions in government are along ideological lines which have nothing to do with the size of States. Within our House, the people of California speak with 53 very different voices. Not with one voice, 53 times louder than Wyoming. A large portion of these Californian voices have more in common with the voice from Wyoming than they do with the voices from their own State. There is no "Big State" agenda, unanimously backed by the Representatives of California and Texas, but blocked by the Senate in order to protect smaller States. Such an agenda does not exist.
States do not even have power in the House of Representatives, the People do. People choose the Representative they believe will best serve their individual interest, not their State’s interest, if one even exists. No State has sway in the House; so when we abolish the Senate, large States will be unable to abuse powers which they do not possess. The Senate was not created to look out for small States. It serves a very different minority.
The super rich, and their puppets, own the Senate because the amount of money required to run a successful Senate race dwarfs the amount required to run for the House. In order to launch a Senatorial campaign, corporate money must be sought. Potential Senatorial candidates are first screened by the concentrations of private power. After this process, the public gets the chance to choose among the corporate nominees. So Senators, emerging from the highest tip of American capitalist society, naturally look out for the interests of the opulent minority.
abolishthesenate.org
Defenders of the status quo claim that citizens from lightly populated States need the Senate for protection against unwanted "Big State" legislation. This is a false assumption because the divisions in government are along ideological lines which have nothing to do with the size of States. Within our House, the people of California speak with 53 very different voices. Not with one voice, 53 times louder than Wyoming. A large portion of these Californian voices have more in common with the voice from Wyoming than they do with the voices from their own State. There is no "Big State" agenda, unanimously backed by the Representatives of California and Texas, but blocked by the Senate in order to protect smaller States. Such an agenda does not exist.
States do not even have power in the House of Representatives, the People do. People choose the Representative they believe will best serve their individual interest, not their State’s interest, if one even exists. No State has sway in the House; so when we abolish the Senate, large States will be unable to abuse powers which they do not possess. The Senate was not created to look out for small States. It serves a very different minority.
The super rich, and their puppets, own the Senate because the amount of money required to run a successful Senate race dwarfs the amount required to run for the House. In order to launch a Senatorial campaign, corporate money must be sought. Potential Senatorial candidates are first screened by the concentrations of private power. After this process, the public gets the chance to choose among the corporate nominees. So Senators, emerging from the highest tip of American capitalist society, naturally look out for the interests of the opulent minority.
abolishthesenate.org
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
Assuming the House and Senate each own 50% of the legislative branch, a voting district in Wyoming has nearly 10 times the representation than a district in California. Across the US, a vote cast in a lightly populated State has greater value than a vote cast in a highly populated State. All men are (supposed to be) created equal. Federal law imposes itself equally on every American. Because of this, every vote cast on the federal level should carry equal value. We achieve this ideal when we cut the Senate out of the federal government and give the entire legislature to its rightful owners, the House of Representatives.
Defenders of the status quo claim that citizens from lightly populated States need the Senate for protection against unwanted "Big State" legislation. This is a false assumption because the divisions in government are along ideological lines which have nothing to do with the size of States. Within our House, the people of California speak with 53 very different voices. Not with one voice, 53 times louder than Wyoming. A large portion of these Californian voices have more in common with the voice from Wyoming than they do with the voices from their own State. There is no "Big State" agenda, unanimously backed by the Representatives of California and Texas, but blocked by the Senate in order to protect smaller States. Such an agenda does not exist.
States do not even have power in the House of Representatives, the People do. People choose the Representative they believe will best serve their individual interest, not their States interest, if one even exists. No State has sway in the House; so when we abolish the Senate, large States will be unable to abuse powers which they do not possess. The Senate was not created to look out for small States. It serves a very different minority.
The super rich, and their puppets, own the Senate because the amount of money required to run a successful Senate race dwarfs the amount required to run for the House. In order to launch a Senatorial campaign, corporate money must be sought. Potential Senatorial candidates are first screened by the concentrations of private power. After this process, the public gets the chance to choose among the corporate nominees. So Senators, emerging from the highest tip of American capitalist society, naturally look out for the interests of the opulent minority.
abolishthesenate.org
This ignores the fact that the House was setup to represent the people and the Senate was setup to represent the states by being appointed by the states. Again, there's no reason to abolish the Senate, just abolish the 17th amendment.
and there is a good reason for thatAssuming the House and Senate each own 50% of the legislative branch, a voting district in Wyoming has nearly 10 times the representation than a district in California. Across the US, a vote cast in a lightly populated State has greater value than a vote cast in a highly populated State. “All men are (supposed to be) created equal.” Federal law imposes itself equally on every American. Because of this, every vote cast on the federal level should carry equal value. We achieve this ideal when we cut the Senate out of the federal government and give the entire legislature to its rightful owners, the House of Representatives.
Defenders of the status quo claim that citizens from lightly populated States need the Senate for protection against unwanted "Big State" legislation. This is a false assumption because the divisions in government are along ideological lines which have nothing to do with the size of States. Within our House, the people of California speak with 53 very different voices. Not with one voice, 53 times louder than Wyoming. A large portion of these Californian voices have more in common with the voice from Wyoming than they do with the voices from their own State. There is no "Big State" agenda, unanimously backed by the Representatives of California and Texas, but blocked by the Senate in order to protect smaller States. Such an agenda does not exist.
States do not even have power in the House of Representatives, the People do. People choose the Representative they believe will best serve their individual interest, not their State’s interest, if one even exists. No State has sway in the House; so when we abolish the Senate, large States will be unable to abuse powers which they do not possess. The Senate was not created to look out for small States. It serves a very different minority.
The super rich, and their puppets, own the Senate because the amount of money required to run a successful Senate race dwarfs the amount required to run for the House. In order to launch a Senatorial campaign, corporate money must be sought. Potential Senatorial candidates are first screened by the concentrations of private power. After this process, the public gets the chance to choose among the corporate nominees. So Senators, emerging from the highest tip of American capitalist society, naturally look out for the interests of the opulent minority.
abolishthesenate.org
- Thread starter
- #133
Assuming the House and Senate each own 50% of the legislative branch, a voting district in Wyoming has nearly 10 times the representation than a district in California. Across the US, a vote cast in a lightly populated State has greater value than a vote cast in a highly populated State. All men are (supposed to be) created equal. Federal law imposes itself equally on every American. Because of this, every vote cast on the federal level should carry equal value. We achieve this ideal when we cut the Senate out of the federal government and give the entire legislature to its rightful owners, the House of Representatives.
Defenders of the status quo claim that citizens from lightly populated States need the Senate for protection against unwanted "Big State" legislation. This is a false assumption because the divisions in government are along ideological lines which have nothing to do with the size of States. Within our House, the people of California speak with 53 very different voices. Not with one voice, 53 times louder than Wyoming. A large portion of these Californian voices have more in common with the voice from Wyoming than they do with the voices from their own State. There is no "Big State" agenda, unanimously backed by the Representatives of California and Texas, but blocked by the Senate in order to protect smaller States. Such an agenda does not exist.
States do not even have power in the House of Representatives, the People do. People choose the Representative they believe will best serve their individual interest, not their States interest, if one even exists. No State has sway in the House; so when we abolish the Senate, large States will be unable to abuse powers which they do not possess. The Senate was not created to look out for small States. It serves a very different minority.
The super rich, and their puppets, own the Senate because the amount of money required to run a successful Senate race dwarfs the amount required to run for the House. In order to launch a Senatorial campaign, corporate money must be sought. Potential Senatorial candidates are first screened by the concentrations of private power. After this process, the public gets the chance to choose among the corporate nominees. So Senators, emerging from the highest tip of American capitalist society, naturally look out for the interests of the opulent minority.
abolishthesenate.org
This ignores the fact that the House was setup to represent the people and the Senate was setup to represent the states by being appointed by the states. Again, there's no reason to abolish the Senate, just abolish the 17th amendment.
There is no need to represent the states.
The government should represent all the people equally.
The Senate violates that ideal.
Therefore, it should be abolished.
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
Assuming the House and Senate each own 50% of the legislative branch, a voting district in Wyoming has nearly 10 times the representation than a district in California. Across the US, a vote cast in a lightly populated State has greater value than a vote cast in a highly populated State. All men are (supposed to be) created equal. Federal law imposes itself equally on every American. Because of this, every vote cast on the federal level should carry equal value. We achieve this ideal when we cut the Senate out of the federal government and give the entire legislature to its rightful owners, the House of Representatives.
Defenders of the status quo claim that citizens from lightly populated States need the Senate for protection against unwanted "Big State" legislation. This is a false assumption because the divisions in government are along ideological lines which have nothing to do with the size of States. Within our House, the people of California speak with 53 very different voices. Not with one voice, 53 times louder than Wyoming. A large portion of these Californian voices have more in common with the voice from Wyoming than they do with the voices from their own State. There is no "Big State" agenda, unanimously backed by the Representatives of California and Texas, but blocked by the Senate in order to protect smaller States. Such an agenda does not exist.
States do not even have power in the House of Representatives, the People do. People choose the Representative they believe will best serve their individual interest, not their States interest, if one even exists. No State has sway in the House; so when we abolish the Senate, large States will be unable to abuse powers which they do not possess. The Senate was not created to look out for small States. It serves a very different minority.
The super rich, and their puppets, own the Senate because the amount of money required to run a successful Senate race dwarfs the amount required to run for the House. In order to launch a Senatorial campaign, corporate money must be sought. Potential Senatorial candidates are first screened by the concentrations of private power. After this process, the public gets the chance to choose among the corporate nominees. So Senators, emerging from the highest tip of American capitalist society, naturally look out for the interests of the opulent minority.
abolishthesenate.org
This ignores the fact that the House was setup to represent the people and the Senate was setup to represent the states by being appointed by the states. Again, there's no reason to abolish the Senate, just abolish the 17th amendment.
There is no need to represent the states.
The government should represent all the people equally.
The Senate violates that ideal.
Therefore, it should be abolished.
Why not? It was the individual states that created the federal government, not the people as a whole. Of course they should have a voice in the federal government.
You're the ideal candidate for weeding out from the voting pool, for your rank ignorance of the republic.There is no need to represent the states.
The government should represent all the people equally.
The Senate violates that ideal.
Therefore, it should be abolished.
- Thread starter
- #136
This ignores the fact that the House was setup to represent the people and the Senate was setup to represent the states by being appointed by the states. Again, there's no reason to abolish the Senate, just abolish the 17th amendment.
There is no need to represent the states.
The government should represent all the people equally.
The Senate violates that ideal.
Therefore, it should be abolished.
Why not? It was the individual states that created the federal government, not the people as a whole. Of course they should have a voice in the federal government.
I disagree.
The Senate violates the ideal in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal."
The Senate creates a situation where "some men are more equal than others."
This is wrong.
Wow.....Just wow!I disagree.
The Senate violates the ideal in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal."
The Senate creates a situation where "some men are more equal than others."
This is wrong.
And to think that you openly and proudly put this mental midgetry on display almost every day!
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
There is no need to represent the states.
The government should represent all the people equally.
The Senate violates that ideal.
Therefore, it should be abolished.
Why not? It was the individual states that created the federal government, not the people as a whole. Of course they should have a voice in the federal government.
I disagree.
The Senate violates the ideal in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal."
The Senate creates a situation where "some men are more equal than others."
This is wrong.
If we repealed the 17th amendment your criticism would no longer be valid, even though I would say it's not valid now. If you were true to your argument you would be calling for the abolition of the House because there is disproportional representation between the states there, not in the Senate. New Mexico only has three representatives in Washington, as opposed to Ohio which has 18. But that's, of course, the purpose of the House, to represent the people as opposed to the state.
- Thread starter
- #139
Why not? It was the individual states that created the federal government, not the people as a whole. Of course they should have a voice in the federal government.
I disagree.
The Senate violates the ideal in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal."
The Senate creates a situation where "some men are more equal than others."
This is wrong.
If we repealed the 17th amendment your criticism would no longer be valid, even though I would say it's not valid now. If you were true to your argument you would be calling for the abolition of the House because there is disproportional representation between the states there, not in the Senate. New Mexico only has three representatives in Washington, as opposed to Ohio which has 18. But that's, of course, the purpose of the House, to represent the people as opposed to the state.
I disagree.
The representatives of the national legislature should be elected by the people according to the ideal that each person's vote has equal value.
Then you disagree with the basic premises of the republic, which is as close to intellectual honesty as you have ever come, tovarich.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 112
- Views
- 855
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 220
- Replies
- 155
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 237
- Replies
- 817
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 21
- Replies
- 215
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8071
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-