Is it possible to abolish the House of Representatives?

[Pellinore]

There are 3 ways to change the constitution. an amendment created by congress and passed by 3/4 of the states. a convention to change the whole thing created again by Congress OR by the States.

Specifically ...

- Congress can call for an Amendment with a 2/3 vote in both houses, or
- 2/3 of the States can get together and call for a convention, where any number of Amendments can be brought up.

Either way, any proposed Amendment is passed when ...
- 3/4 of the State Legislatures ratify it, or ...
- Conventions in 3/4 of the States ratify it.

If Congress proposes an Amendment, it also gets to choose which method of ratification to use.
Only one Amendment has ever been ratified by conventions, the 21st (ending Prohibition).

 

[rupol2000]

Specifically ...

- Congress can call for an Amendment with a 2/3 vote in both houses, or
- 2/3 of the States can get together and call for a convention, where any number of Amendments can be brought up.

Either way, any proposed Amendment is passed when ...
- 3/4 of the State Legislatures ratify it, or ...
- Conventions in 3/4 of the States ratify it.

If Congress proposes an Amendment, it also gets to choose which method of ratification to use.
Only one Amendment has ever been ratified by conventions, the 21st (ending Prohibition).

This is a strange amendment in all respects. Firstly, this is outright left-wing impudence, and secondly, this is the only amendment that cancels the previous amendment. Legitimacy of the 21st Amendment questionable

 

[para bellum]

Can't your constitution be changed by plebiscite?

We do not have national plebiscites.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So the states are not the population?

Sadly, the Senate is now tied to the federal government rather than their state.

States have simply become agencies, satellites, of the federal government.

 

[BackAgain]

The OP question is stupid and premised on an error.

The short answer is: yes. Of course it’s “possible.” The Constitution itself contemplates such a thing. It’s called an “amendment.”

The reason for the bicameral nature of our congress has nothing at all to do with plebeian vs patrician. The House is closer to the People themselves. Directly elected. The Senators WERE to be CHOSEN by state legislators. The concept was one of dividing power. In this case between the more democratically elected representatives (for the People) and the less democratically appointed senators (for the States). State vs State. People of one state vs People of other States. Federalism fine tuned.

Then we fucked it up (via a misguided but successfully passed) Amendment. We should repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We are not a direct democracy. A republic is a form of indirect democracy, and we are definitely that.

Yup, America is a Republic with a splash of Representative Democracy.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We vote for both. There are 435 Representatives, who have to run every two years. I am in District 4 of the 11 that my State has (according to its population), so I will vote for that seat this November.

There's a little more history behind the Senate seats. Every State has its own government, mostly organized like smaller versions of the US government; originally, these State legislatures elected the Senators. Fear of corruption inspired us to change it in 1913, though, so now we each vote for our own Senators as well. They serve six-year terms, so 33 or 34 of the 100 Senators get re-elected every two years. My State will vote for one of my Senators this November, the other one in November of 2024, then 2026 is our year "off."

And, of course, because we have a Presidential system rather than a Parliamentary one, we have to vote for that office every four years, conveniently timed to coincide with both the leap years and the Summer Olympics. We don't vote for Supreme Court Justices; they are appointed.

That's the bone of contention in the UK, the Lords are not elected by the public, so technically, not democratic. The Lords last forever, the MP's last a maximum of 5 years before a general election needs to be called.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nonsense, the Senate is the equal representation of the states. Nothing could be fairer to represent the interests of the states

California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.

 

[rupol2000]

California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.

That is, China in international organizations should have 100 times more votes than the United States?

 

[rupol2000]

Yup, America is a Republic with a splash of Representative Democracy.

Democracy is the rule of the people. it is in both cases a democracy, but I would prefer here the terms "aristocratic" and "plebeian" (or "primitive") democracy. The real democratic vertical of the King-Roman Senate of the Patricians against the plebeian flat model. The Republic includes both sides.

 

[rupol2000]

Aristocratic democracy comes from the natural tribal model of the Aryan tribes. It is a fractal. The father of the family is subordinate to the head of the clan, the head of the clan to the head of the tribe, the head of the tribe is a representative in the Senate - the Union of tribes. People always know their Fathers and do not succumb to the manipulations of swindlers.

 

[rupol2000]

And since the Americans are the people aristocratic by spirit, who honor the Aryan ideals of Heroism and Liberty (with the exception of the British colonists), it is the Senate model that suits them - an assembly of state leaders. Nothing else is required.

 

[Pellinore]

That's the bone of contention in the UK, the Lords are not elected by the public, so technically, not democratic. The Lords last forever, the MP's last a maximum of 5 years before a general election needs to be called.

I can understand that. Maybe it's the American anti-royalism ingrained in me, but I'd have a problem with inherited positions (with actual political power) in The Year of Our Lord 2022.

 

[Pellinore]

California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.

Sure it is. California and Wyoming have exactly the same number of State Constitutions, and that's what gives them their Senators, not population. That's the bones of the Great Compromise that set up our Congress.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's just amazing. This gives hope that America will rise from its knees and save itself from the leftist plague.

I recently watched a plebiscite on constitutional amendments in one *well-known* country. Approximately 99.9% did not read it, and almost 100% still do not understand what they voted for.
It was not so easy to even find the text of these amendments, but they "voted" from commercials on TV.

It's not a joke, it's just the way it is.

And you think that doesn't happen in our Senate? Senators have even said that they will read it after it passes.

 

[rupol2000]

And you think that doesn't happen in our Senate? Senators have even said that they will read it after it passes.

Not on that scale.

It's also *funny*, by the way, that in the United States each constitutional amendment is a huge event, a plebiscite votes without looking, for a whole package that radically changes the constitutional system without taking popcorn out of the mouth

If it were possible, Roosevelt would have done it

 

[rightwinger]

Of course, the swindlers themselves will not give up power, but this can be achieved popularly and by pressure from state governments.

State Governments are more corrupt than Federal Govt

 

[rightwinger]

And you think that doesn't happen in our Senate? Senators have even said that they will read it after it passes.

They never said that

 

[rupol2000]

State Governments are more corrupt than Federal Govt

Corruption always increases with the centralization of power, because corrupt officials are the mainstay of the federals in the field. The feds turn a blind eye to corruption in exchange for loyalty. In addition, the independence of different branches is lost, so the prosecutor's check of an official will not work, due to corruption ties of different branches in one place.

 

[rightwinger]

Corruption always increases with the centralization of power, because corrupt officials are the mainstay of the federals in the field. The feds turn a blind eye to corruption in exchange for loyalty. In addition, the independence of different branches is lost, so the prosecutor's check of an official will not work, due to corruption ties of different branches in one place.

Corruption increases with the decrease of observation

States have lower levels of observation than the Feds