• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Senate?


  • Total voters
    62
well i have an example for him for both federal and state, ...he does not bother me.

i am still waiting for him to openly challenge me, on Madison creating the foundation of the constutution months before the constitutional convention.
Whatever melts your butter.
 
The 17th is fine, we just need term limits.

we had build in term limits before the 17th, if you go back and look at history.. no state legislature kept sending back the same guy for the senate for decades.

its only after the 17th you start seeing long term senators, like robert byrd, of over 50 years.

but term limits are not going to solve the problem, we have to have a state voice back into government to put the federal governments powers back into check.

with the 17th , its moves us closer to democracy., which the founders did not want.

our government was created off of the roman republic, not the democracy of Greece.

john Adams in his works #6 states that if the roman style of government a were ever changed to a representative democracy, by allowing the people to vote for senators of the roman senate, it would be a terrible form of government, becuase it would become very factious, and in the end destroy itself.
 
So from what I see, the best form a handling the Senate would be having the Representatives vote for them? The House of Representatives would get term limits, so new ideas would certainly circulate, in the form of voting for Senators that fit the views of the Representatives.


we had build in term limits before the 17th, if you go back and look at history.. no state legislature kept sending back the same guy for the senate for decades.

its only after the 17th you start seeing long term senators, like robert byrd, of over 50 years.

but term limits are not going to solve the problem, we have to have a state voice back into government to put the federal governments powers back into check.

with the 17th , its moves us closer to democracy., which the founders did not want.

our government was created off of the roman republic, not the democracy of Greece.

john Adams in his works #6 states that if the roman style of government a were ever changed to a representative democracy, by allowing the people to vote for senators of the roman senate, it would be a terrible form of government, becuase it would become very factious, and in the end destroy itself.
 
So from what I see, the best form a handling the Senate would be having the Representatives vote for them? The House of Representatives would get term limits, so new ideas would certainly circulate, in the form of voting for Senators that fit the views of the Representatives.

you would vote for your state legislature, and they appoint a senator, so you are exercising a indirect vote for your senator, that senator acts in the interest of your state, to see the federal government does not violate your rights, and tax you, and does not step outside of the constitution., since that state power is there to keep the federal government in check.

this also makes people more inclined to vote in their state elections, and be more informed
 
I agree, now that it has been thoroughly explained.

you would vote for your state legislature, and they appoint a senator, so you are exercising a indirect vote for your senator, that senator acts in the interest of your state, to see the federal government does not violate your rights, and tax you, and does not step outside of the constitution., since that state power is there to keep the federal government in check.

this also makes people more inclined to vote in their state elections, and be more informed
 
you would vote for your state legislature, and they appoint a senator, so you are exercising a indirect vote for your senator,

Thank goodness Teddy Roosevelt got rid of that act of House Gerry-mandering with the 17th amendment..not gonna happen ernst..
 
Thank goodness Teddy Roosevelt got rid of that act of House Gerry-mandering with the 17th amendment..not gonna happen ernst..

then what you saying to me is..you favor democracy, which the founders hated.

Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism--karl marx

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. Vladimir Lenin.
 
Breaking news! The house just passed this amendment. The bill will now be considered by the... damnit!

Anyway, sometimes it's a good thing for nothing to happen. (by sometimes, I mean almost all the time).
 
are you asking on a state or federal level ..........or both?

Begin with the federal level as that information should be more widely available and known to more of us that some obscure state event..
 
Your personal problems are not the issue. Your failure to provide evidence of the people you support is.

Please provide data supporting the need to end the Senate.
 
Please provide data supporting the need to end the Senate.

Where did I advocate abolishing the US Senate? You need to check the poll and you will see I voted NO on the issue.

And yet again you attempt to move the goal posts to a new arena altogether since you are unable to post evidence supporting your previous posts supporting people who claim that the rights of the minority are taken away through the vote exercised by the majority.
 
Where did I advocate abolishing the US Senate? You need to check the poll and you will see I voted NO on the issue.

And yet again you attempt to move the goal posts to a new arena altogether since you are unable to post evidence supporting your previous posts supporting people who claim that the rights of the minority are taken away through the vote exercised by the majority.

That's what this thread is about, and the rest of us have been arguing against it. So obviously you must be arguing for it. So again, please provide the data to support your contention that the Senate should go.
 
That's what this thread is about, and the rest of us have been arguing against it. So obviously you must be arguing for it. So again, please provide the data to support your contention that the Senate should go.

Look at the poll with my answer to the poll question. I voted NO. Asking me to defend the opposite position is rather pointless. :roll:
 
Look at the poll with my answer to the poll question. I voted NO. Asking me to defend the opposite position is rather pointless. :roll:

Then why the **** have you been arguing with us? Move along.
 
Then why the **** have you been arguing with us? Move along.

Move along?!?!?!?! Who died and appointed you demigod over this place?

Still waiting for the evidence regarding the allegation that the majority votes to take away the rights of the minority. And a big clue for you - its NOT in the sacred federalist papers.
 
Begin with the federal level as that information should be more widely available and known to more of us that some obscure state event..

well lets make it simple, and what i just talked about, the ACA, a piece of legislation, voted on by majority vote, in both Houses of congress, only in the peoples interest, that mandates that a citizen MUST BUY a private sector product,............. against his will<------------------AGAINST HIS WILL.
.....one group dictating to another group, what they must do.....


states...were referendums are placed on a ballot for the people to vote [majority rule], on issues of private property........smoking bans.

the people take away the right of an owner ,to run his own business according to his own likes....



the whole idea of having the senate in state legislature hands , was to prevent majority rule, democracy......people acting in a collective capacity.

"The true distinction between these and the American governments , lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"
 
Move along?!?!?!?! Who died and appointed you demigod over this place?

Still waiting for the evidence regarding the allegation that the majority votes to take away the rights of the minority. And a big clue for you - its NOT in the sacred federalist papers.

I didn't make the allegation.
 
Back
Top Bottom