Should the U.S. Senate be abolished?

[Chris]

I think so, no question.

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

 

[REVxERIK]

so what do you propose instead, because direct democracy won't work either

 

[The Rabbi]

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

 

[seth1492]

I think the Senate should continue. The key being that the House of Representatives is there to offset them. The only way that can happen though is for the house to continue to grow and expand to represent our populations and demographics.

 

[xsited1]

I think so, no question.

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

Uh, no. Obviously. But we need to elected them according to the Constitution:

Article I, section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

BTW, "And to the Republic, for which is stands..."

 

[REVxERIK]

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

yes let's repress the masses more! grand idea

 

[rightwinger]

Its worked for over 200 years and provides employment

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[xsited1]

Its worked for over 200 years and provides employment

It stopped working in 1913.

 

[REVxERIK]

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?

what percentage of people does this apply to? i'm sure you have numbers and proof

 

[Shorebreak]

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.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

what percentage of people does this apply to? i'm sure you have numbers and proof

You have to also remember that the Federal Government is a creation of the states, and not vice versa... The states themselves are the key to federal representation and federal office.... the 'masses' were to be represented within their state government and the states represented in the federal government.. all as a buffer against the tyranny of the masses...

Now there are arguments for an against repealing the 17th... a 'pro' 17th argument I do like is that we have the 3 branches of the fed chosen in 3 different ways... a 'con' 17th argument I like is a balance within the congress itself and not just the congress supposedly being a balance against the other 2 branches

 

[seth1492]

I agree, the Senate is meant to work in behalf of the States. The better they work for the state the more balanced the government will be.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No.. But I think the states should go back to appointing U.S. Senators as they did before.

 

[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?

what percentage of people does this apply to? i'm sure you have numbers and proof

Seventy seven percent.

 

[Navy1960]

Art. 4 Sec. 4 Par. 1

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.”


These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority


Chris, I'm sorry to say that we live in a nation that the Minority is safeguarded from the Majority by the constitution and the United States Senate is it's best Reflection of our REPULICAN form of Govt. even though that has recently been undermined with the Supreme Court in the 1930's giving congress unlimted power to legislate for the General Welfare. There is only one state to my knowledge that can split into 5 seperate states adding 8 additional Senators according to it's original compact with the United States and thats Texas. Keep in mind when you advocate this sort of thing there is a reason why we don't have a Pure Democracy here...

Our Founding Fathers chose a Republic over a Democracy for many reasons; primarily because they remembered the most infamous “democratic” vote in all history. [i.e.] The lesson of a bureaucrat some 2000 years ago who turned to a crowd and asked which prisoner should be released – the crowd yelled - “give us Barabbas”. The ‘will of the people’ spoke that day. When the bureaucrat asked the people what should be done with this innocent, this Jesus, the crowd responded with a loud – CRUCIFY HIM.

 

[mdn2000]

what needs to be abolished are political partys
all taxes and fees
career politicians
privatize just about everything the government does

We need one tax, when we purchase goods, that tax then will be divided amongst the government. The states the cities, etd.

Privatize everything and allow competition, like the post office, amtrack, the passport office, immigration office.

No campaigns to get elected, we need a website where you can pick the canidate based on their resume. As it is now, its only the rich or career politicians that can get elected.

Taking the tax code away takes a ton of the power away.

I have not thought all this out, I should so my ideas read well, but they are sound ideas.

Property tax is the worst, you lose your job, you could grow food, hunt or fish, or you can stock pile food, but if you cant pay property tax you get thrown out on the street by whichever political party is in control.

 

[Polk]

Those rallying for the Senate aren't rallying for some ideal. They're rallying for power.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I think so, no question.

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

No. You are stupid.