Do we really need a Senate?

[Redfish]

Candy

all the things you are concerned about would be solved by term limits: two 6 year terms for senate and three 2 year terms for the house, or we could save a lot of election expense by making it one 8 year term for senate and one 6 year term for the house. that way they would actually be able to do the business of the country rather than spening 80% of their time campaigning.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Candy
all the things you are concerned about would be solved by term limits:

On the contrary...
All of her complaints illustrate that congress is working as intended.

 

[Redfish]

Candy
all the things you are concerned about would be solved by term limits:

On the contrary...
All of her complaints illustrate that congress is working as intended.

the current congress has done nothing, constant stalemate is not what was intended.

 

[Oddball]

Candy

all the things you are concerned about would be solved by term limits...

Appointment of Senators by the state legislatures, and seating by the governors, would act as defacto term limits.

For, example look at Wisconsin....Do you think that a confirmed far left nutbar like Herb Kohl could survive a Scott Walker administration?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Candy
all the things you are concerned about would be solved by term limits:

On the contrary...
All of her complaints illustrate that congress is working as intended.

the current congress has done nothing, constant stalemate is not what was intended.

The intention was for Congress to only pass legislation that enjoyed broad based support across the two houses as well as the executive.

"Constant stalemate" is a result of insufficent support, not a flaw in the structure of Congress - so, if you want to know why legislation stalls, you need to look at the legislation, not how congress works.

It is -supposed - to be difficult to pass legislation.

 

[FA_Q2]

Candy
all the things you are concerned about would be solved by term limits:

On the contrary...
All of her complaints illustrate that congress is working as intended.

the current congress has done nothing, constant stalemate is not what was intended.

Nothing, except what they did pass….
www.congress-summary.com - Laws Passed by the 111th Congress
www.congress-summary.com - Laws Passed by the 112th Congress
www.congress-summary.com - Laws Passed by the 113th Congress

And these are just the ones that passed both houses and the president. It does not include those bills that were vetoed or shelved by the other side.

Of course, the reality is that the number of laws and resolution has no bearing on the quality of such and should not be used as a compass to whether or not they are doing their job.

 

[Erand7899]

That's true at least; it isn't going to change. What we, as Americans, seem to believe is this...

Those who were at the first Constitutional Convention in 1787 were totally without flaws; that they crafted the one and ONLY document that has every answer that was ever asked and that would ever be asked...ever; that those who contributed were, amazingly, totally without personal interest, totally without bias, totally without preconceived notions of what the country should look like and that, without anything to go on, got it exactly right on the very first try with only a few modifications to follow in the form of amendments.

You find the same sort of argument about the Bible..."It is written..." a long time ago so it must be true; right?

You wouldn't have a business plan that is over 5 years old yet somehow we as Americans believe that having one that is over 200 years old is perfectly fine.

God Bless America.

Obviously the Constituion is not perfect.... and the Constituion itself was filled with compromises. The Senate was one of them., as was the 3/5ths compromise , as was the allowance of a continuing international slave trade for 20 years... I could go on, but what is truly remarkable is that they actually agreed on something and got it ratified. Without those compromises it would not have occured

The Constituion also has Article V which allows for the amendment of same. If you read it carefully you will find an exception to the usual rules for an amendment and which deals directly with the Senate. Basically, and in order to change the Senate, you will need a unanimous consent of all the states, not merely 3/4ths as is the case with other amendments.

So, I will say again, you have absolutely no chance of obtaining your goal. You might as well be wishing for unicorns and rainbows.

Yes, I know that; the Senate isn't going anywhere but not because of it's own merit; but because we're afraid to look at the 200+ year old document, admit it's flaws, and address them.

The truth is that the House is every bit as capable of assuming the Senatorial duties and most Americans wouldn't notice a difference except there would be far more signings of bills than talking heads on TV blaming the other side.

You appear to assume that passing legislation is always better than not passing legislation, and that mob rule should be the norm for the nation.

Keeping bad legislation from becoming law is just as important as passing good legislation. Obamacare is an excellent example of what happens when the system is steamrolled by mob emotion. You get a two thousand page law that few have read and fewer yet understand what is in it.

 

[Plasmaball]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

Yes we do..but not the one we currently have.

 

[candycorn]

Obviously the Constituion is not perfect.... and the Constituion itself was filled with compromises. The Senate was one of them., as was the 3/5ths compromise , as was the allowance of a continuing international slave trade for 20 years... I could go on, but what is truly remarkable is that they actually agreed on something and got it ratified. Without those compromises it would not have occured

The Constituion also has Article V which allows for the amendment of same. If you read it carefully you will find an exception to the usual rules for an amendment and which deals directly with the Senate. Basically, and in order to change the Senate, you will need a unanimous consent of all the states, not merely 3/4ths as is the case with other amendments.

So, I will say again, you have absolutely no chance of obtaining your goal. You might as well be wishing for unicorns and rainbows.

Yes, I know that; the Senate isn't going anywhere but not because of it's own merit; but because we're afraid to look at the 200+ year old document, admit it's flaws, and address them.

The truth is that the House is every bit as capable of assuming the Senatorial duties and most Americans wouldn't notice a difference except there would be far more signings of bills than talking heads on TV blaming the other side.

You appear to assume that passing legislation is always better than not passing legislation, and that mob rule should be the norm for the nation.

Actually, quite the opposite. The job they are sent to do is pass legislation. They suck at it--effective legislation anyway. I am a fan of Tom Colichio (sp?) who is a world renown chef. He was on the advisory panel for school lunch programs. The end result of something like 16 months of work was that the funding for each lunch was increased 9 cents. We're on a collison course with with Diabetes becoming a real threat to our lineage and we increased the program by 9 cents per student or some ridiculous figure like that.

Debate and defeat or approval via compromise of legislation should be the order of the day; not some dipshit from Nevada or Kentucky deciding that the bill from the House gets wadded up and tossed into the trash. Somehow a guy who no one voted for outside of Nevada or Kentucky became the de-facto insurmountable object for either good or bad legislation based solely on what his party thinks.

Keeping bad legislation from becoming law is just as important as passing good legislation. Obamacare is an excellent example of what happens when the system is steamrolled by mob emotion. You get a two thousand page law that few have read and fewer yet understand what is in it.

Yes and gutless wonders still voted "YEA" or "NAY" despite what may be good or bad about the bill. You make my case very well, actually. If the Senate is going to do business that way, who needs them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, I know that; the Senate isn't going anywhere but not because of it's own merit; but because we're afraid to look at the 200+ year old document, admit it's flaws, and address them.

The truth is that the House is every bit as capable of assuming the Senatorial duties and most Americans wouldn't notice a difference except there would be far more signings of bills than talking heads on TV blaming the other side.

You appear to assume that passing legislation is always better than not passing legislation, and that mob rule should be the norm for the nation.

Actually, quite the opposite. The job they are sent to do is pass legislation.

False.
They are there to represent the political will of their constituants.
They need not pass a single bill to do that, with absolute efficacy.
Clearly, it is impossible for you to have an intelligent conversation on this topic.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hyperbolic nonsense.

No one is advocating any such thing, and we’re ‘heading’ in no such direction.

You seriously don't see how suggesting we abolish a chamber of Congress moves us towards turning everything over to the Emperor?

I dont. We would still have representation through house members who are more beholden to their district such as it is.

Ok....The concept of TWO houses of Congress is for each to check and balance the other.
Again, to limit the power of government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You want to get rid of it? Get an amendment past the Congress and approved by 37 States. Or are you suggesting we ignore the Constitution?

Good luck getting the Senators to agree to abolishing their position.

While we are at it, let's reorganize the government completely to form the First Galactic Empire.

The spirit of the thread was just to pose the question. I've yet to hear anything other than "Well, the Constitution says we're supposed to have one so we should have one." Nobody has pointed out--it doesn't mean that they can't; they just haven't yet--what conflicts of interest would arise if the House Judiciary Committee took over vettting judges or selecting the VP in case of a tie in the electoral college.

Hell, if you really want to keep these 100 geezers around; just add 100 seats to the House and let them all fight it out. I tend to think that there would be no great influx of talent myself but...whatever.

I do find it amusing that those who decry the federal over-reach seem to be the most vocal proponents of keeping the status-quo. You'd figure these chairborne warriors who are constantly in fear of Uncle Sam would welcome the chance to whack off 100 useless speed bumps.

The good news is, you won't be getting your way. So just drop it..

 

[thereisnospoon]

1) The people have NO control over the House. There is one representative for every 700,000 Americans, when it used to be 1:25,000.

2) Its' role was to represent the interests of the State, and functioned quite well in that capacity prior to 1913 (the passage of the 17th Amendment, making Senators elected by popular vote).

3) It still serves as a secondary cockblock to tyranny of the majority. It is meant to be inefficient, the bi-cameral system is specifically designed to be cumbersome.

That pretty much tells the story to the libs on here who think Congress exists to do the bidding of the POTUS..."Pass legislation"....
The long and the short of it is the Founders set up out system so that whatever business the Congress took up would be carefully examined and the process was made to be deliberately slow.
Again, the concept of limited government.

No.

There is a difference between passing legislation and enacting it; signing it into law.

Congress's only role in lawmaking is to pass legislation.

We have thousand page bills spending hundreds of billions of dollars. A lot of times the Senators arent reading the bills...many couldnt stay awake long enough to read half of one of them... If you think this is what the founders wanted, you dont know the founders. That goes without saying

Ok...You are arguing just to argue. Your point is at its dead end. You're making up stuff just to have something to type. Most of all, you are making no sense.
Since you opened the door...Do you really think House members are reading those thousand page bills?....Please.
You are a whiner.

 

[candycorn]

You seriously don't see how suggesting we abolish a chamber of Congress moves us towards turning everything over to the Emperor?

I dont. We would still have representation through house members who are more beholden to their district such as it is.

Ok....The concept of TWO houses of Congress is for each to check and balance the other.
Again, to limit the power of government.

It isnt working.

 

[candycorn]

Good luck getting the Senators to agree to abolishing their position.

While we are at it, let's reorganize the government completely to form the First Galactic Empire.

The spirit of the thread was just to pose the question. I've yet to hear anything other than "Well, the Constitution says we're supposed to have one so we should have one." Nobody has pointed out--it doesn't mean that they can't; they just haven't yet--what conflicts of interest would arise if the House Judiciary Committee took over vettting judges or selecting the VP in case of a tie in the electoral college.

Hell, if you really want to keep these 100 geezers around; just add 100 seats to the House and let them all fight it out. I tend to think that there would be no great influx of talent myself but...whatever.

I do find it amusing that those who decry the federal over-reach seem to be the most vocal proponents of keeping the status-quo. You'd figure these chairborne warriors who are constantly in fear of Uncle Sam would welcome the chance to whack off 100 useless speed bumps.

The good news is, you won't be getting your way. So just drop it..

No.

 

[candycorn]

That pretty much tells the story to the libs on here who think Congress exists to do the bidding of the POTUS..."Pass legislation"....
The long and the short of it is the Founders set up out system so that whatever business the Congress took up would be carefully examined and the process was made to be deliberately slow.
Again, the concept of limited government.

No.

There is a difference between passing legislation and enacting it; signing it into law.

Congress's only role in lawmaking is to pass legislation.

We have thousand page bills spending hundreds of billions of dollars. A lot of times the Senators arent reading the bills...many couldnt stay awake long enough to read half of one of them... If you think this is what the founders wanted, you dont know the founders. That goes without saying

Ok...You are arguing just to argue. Your point is at its dead end. You're making up stuff just to have something to type. Most of all, you are making no sense.
Since you opened the door...Do you really think House members are reading those thousand page bills?....Please.
You are a whiner.

I never said they did. I imagine most take their party leader's interpretation of the bill.

Feel free to disengage.

 

[candycorn]

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.

The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

Yes we do..but not the one we currently have.

Exactly. How long has it been since we could say the inverse.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I dont. We would still have representation through house members who are more beholden to their district such as it is.

Ok....The concept of TWO houses of Congress is for each to check and balance the other.
Again, to limit the power of government.

It isnt working.

It is working exactly as intended.

 

[Euroconservativ]

In Italy they have a group of Senators for Life ("Senatori a Vita"), who have decided the fate of several governments. For example, they ousted Romano Prodi in 2006.

In America, in the last 4 years, three US Senators have died in office.

If he/she doesn't make a major mistake and he/she is not a conservative in a very liberal state (or a liberal in a very conservative state), a US Senator will stay in office for decades or for life. Until he/she chooses to retire.

Iowa, a moderate state, has a staunch conservative senator (Grassley) and a staunch liberal senator (Harkin). Both won their last re-election by a 30 point margin and both are older than 70.