View Poll Results: Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Senate?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 1.28%
  • No

    58 74.36%
  • No, but serious modifications in the structure of Congress is needed

    16 20.51%
  • IDK/other

    3 3.85%
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 196

Thread: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

  1. #21
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    one branch you say??--Nebraska has that in their state legislature
    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Never said I wanted to eliminate Congress. To the contrary, I think Congress should stand it's ground and not allow it's power to be dimished. However, I think Congress should consist of 1 branch and for which 1-citizen-1-vote applies.
    Physics is Phun

  2. #22
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Having two branches of Congress increasingly brings the government to a gridlock. The Senate was created when the federal government was going to have virtually no power for which each state was a quasi-independent country joining with others primarily for military defense. But that all ended with the Civil War and is ancient history.

    Why should the people and state of Wyoming have 7000% more political power than a Californian and California? Wyoming doesn't contribute 7000% more to the good of the nation. Shouldn't it be one-person-one-vote, rather than 1 vote for a California and 70 votes for a someone who votes in Wyoming? This also leads to massive out-of-state-money being thrown into low population states. The state of Wyoming and many other states have a total population that is only a fraction of just a major American city. I see no justification for that anymore.

    I think the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Senate. This is not limited to the current Congressional mess at all. Rather, it is a growing problem overall and a serious question of the fairness of democracy/republic form of government.

    Your opinion?
    How come every time someone doesn't get what they want, they want to change the system. Gridlock is actually part of the plan. We don't want things moving too fast. We'd be bouncing legislation like a ping pong ball without some check.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #23
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,350

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    The structure of government is working as intended. If there is not enough agreement to do something, then the government shouldn't do it--subject to the constraints of the Constitution.

  4. #24
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,350

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    This is pretty much the only thing that's impossible to amend the Constitution due to Article V.
    Not really, the last line greatly inhibits that idea unless some state agrees to it.

    "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    NO. That gridlock you dislike is exactly the point of having two separate portions of the US Congress. They each serve to limit the other along with the POTUS and the SCOTUS.

  6. #26
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Industry experts with real world experience providing their opinions of policy and the likely impacts on them and the economy is an essential aspect of representation.
    As advisors, when their opinions are asked for by wise rulers.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  7. #27
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I think that industry expert lobbying is integral to representation and informed development. It's not worth giving that up to fight corruption. Corruption should be engaged directly and without degrading our flow of information to the government.

    I would consider banning lobbyists to be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
    You're mistaking lobbyists for advisors. Advisors provide impartial insight that aids their rulers in implementing policy that achieves a balance between interested parties and allows civilization to progress.

    Lobbyists use every ounce of influence they can muster (and some of them have quite a lot) to have policy reflect that they are the most important thing in the republic and that the entire republic and all the people within it should break to serve their organization's needs.

    Ordinarily I would say lobbyists are better than having no kind of advisor, but frankly the practice has become so corrupt it wouldn't matter much if incompetent rulers started implementing policy unilaterally without consulting anyone. That's pretty much what it amounts to.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-15-13 at 01:34 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  8. #28
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,313

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    As advisors, when their opinions are asked for by wise rulers.
    Oh please. You think that we, as an individual, group or society, need the permission of the government to inform them of our concerns? Totalitarian much?

  9. #29
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Oh please. You think that we, as an individual, group or society, need the permission of the government to inform them of our concerns? Totalitarian much?
    Democracy should only carry so far, or it undermines the very concept of leadership.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  10. #30
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    The structure of government is working as intended. If there is not enough agreement to do something, then the government shouldn't do it--subject to the constraints of the Constitution.

    Except how it functions has changed for partisan reasons.

    The only reason the government is "shut down" is because Republicans in the House would not fund Obamacare, for which Democrats then decided to shutdown all of government instead. The Senate could have easily just passed financing everything else. The same is happening in relation to the debt.

    The "change" that has come is the media and public perception that if one aspect of government doesn't get what it wants, then all of the government and economy must be shut down. This is a radical shift in the perception of how Congress and the budget works. Until now, how it worked was everything that was agreed upon was paid for and everything else was not. Now it is that everything must be paid whether there is agreement or not, and if everything isn't paid for then nothing is paid for. And the media and public have (bizarrely in my opinion) accepted that practice.

    The potential "gridlock" used to be fully functional because it meant everything agreed upon was done, and only what was not agreed upon was "gridlocked." NOW, any disagreement shuts everything entirely down at huge economic and national danger. Thus, gridlock is no longer tolerable to allow.

    All that, of course, by passes the one-citizen-one-vote issue.

    But for your point, gridlock potential has shifted from being a safeguard to perpetual extortion and playing Russian roulette. The role of Congress in terms of budget has been 100% diametrically reversed. That reversal is supportive of an Imperial presidency if the president is of the same party as either half of Congress. Simply, the actual power of Congress has been stripped away, leaving a void and the chaos that can bring.

    Your message is no longer accurate. It is not that the government won't do what it doesn't agree on. Rather, to the government won't do anything unless everything is agreed upon. That is a diametric opposite of past practices and I believe the intent.
    Last edited by joko104; 10-15-13 at 01:40 PM.

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •