• 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!

Should the Senate be Eliminated

Fiddytree said:
Suppose single payer was the end result of the legislative battle in 2009 and 2010 and suppose single payer was roughly as popular as the ACA.

Take the timeline from the post-ACA and transpose that onto the hypothetical single payer universe.

Now consider what would have happened nearly two years ago without a Senate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

If you want to say something, say it. If you want to convince me of something, make your case. I for one know that the ACA was designed primarily to get GOP votes in the Senate in a filibuster environment. In order to do that, it was felt that the best path forward was to adopt a similar plan that Romney had in MA and that the Heritage Foundation recommended ages ago. Then it would be improved upon by successive administrations. It did not happen. The GOP went loco over the idea of universal health care and here we are but for one vote by John McCain. At least he remembered what it was like to be a Senator when it counted.
 
Fiddytree said:
Conservatives haven’t generally been the ones advocating the removal of the Senate.

But if they had, I would also make them think about Nancy Pelosi or something.

It’s useful having one entity that is available to counterbalance the passions of the other and it’s useful having an entity that is less tied to the hyper-sensitive whims of the public—or at the very least, whoever happened to be present at the voting booth in *one* election.

The Senate inhibits progress or reform, however you define it. But it also makes it far more likely that you won’t be see-sawing every couple of years. And that’s very beneficial. Health care policy is a good example to use regarding the dangers of rapid and continuous change, because of the high risk to sensitive and vulnerable populations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

The current US Constitution that gives us staggered elections and different length terms for congressmen, senators and the president is a recipe for political inertia.

It makes unpopular policies, however necessary they might be, difficult to pass to say the least.


I'm in two minds about the usefulness of the upper house, generally I think an upper houses serves only to act as a road block to progress.
I draw a comparison with the British House of Lords that's spent it's history in being a next to useless institution that just costs a lot of money to run.


I think, ideally if the Constitution were to be re-written, I'd scrap the Senate and expand the House to something like 600-650 congressmen serving 4 year terms.

I you really wanted to be radical, the House speaker should be more like a European Prime Minister and be the head of the government whilst the president is head of state and restricted to handling foreign affairs.
 
Michael Johnson said:
Yes, sir. I think all branches should be able to impeach each other.
Click to expand...

I don't think a branch should be impeached but rather an individual.

IMO, the judiciery should not be regarded as a branch of government and should be a-political.
 
Harshaw said:
I didn't say I "wanted" anything. But in that scenario, I'd judge the people who judge them.
Click to expand...

IMO, the is too far removed from public accountability.

Again, I didn't say I wanted anything. But in that scenario, the senators are not supposed to represent "them;" they're supposed to represent the state governments. Don't see what's so difficult to grasp. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think all members of a government branch should represent the people not an institution

Example: if a law was proposed that sought to cut spending on the military and focus spending on a few certain states, senators should vote on the bill on its merits, not what's best for their state.
 
Individual said:
Yes, there is a good reason, but I can think of none beneficial to the voters when there are so many issues needing attention.
Click to expand...

Dividing into political parties gets things done, having all congressmen as independents is a recipe for chaos.

Look at the Italian government with its highly fractured legislature and count the number of governments it has had since WWII.
 
Felis Leo said:
Indeed. But elected politicians tend to focus on short-term interests because that is what their constituents generally care about come election time, and what animates them to come out to vote.
Click to expand...

That is usually the case but many politicians also have longer term interests in mind like climate control.

When I refer to a state, I refer to it as a polity, i.e, not merely its bounded geographic area, but including its people, its political community, its economy and resources. In that, the Senators represent the entire state as a whole, but presently it citizens, rather than its government.
Click to expand...

A state has no interests, only the people within that state.

IMO, senators should vote on a bills merits, not on what's best for the people of their state.


What prevents a congressman from looking at the long term? Regular elections. Let me put it to you thusly. For anyone who is serious about combating global warming but also wants to maintain our economic growth and high standard of living, right now the increased use of nuclear energy is the only realistic way forward. But the popular consensus is generally against the construction of new nuclear facilities, even if they are newer, better facilities, and even if it is the most proven solution we have in the here and now to reduce our carbon emissions across the board and power a new generation of electric vehicles. Legislation allowing for the creation of new nuclear facilities would probably be unpopular in the short term, but would almost certainly yield beneficial results in the long term...
If you're arguing for longer terms for congressmen I'd agree with you. Two years is ridiculously short.


It means what you mean when you say "sovereign." The constituent EU member countries have given up some of their sovereignty to join the trading bloc, notably their ability to conduct international trade agreements outside the EU. Further, the individual states of the United States still retain some degree of sovereignty. The Federal government cannot simply hand down decrees for the individual states to follow, and Constitutional Amendments require ratification of the states. We can of course argue how substantial or vestigial this sovereignty is, but I contend that it still exists.
Click to expand...

True, entering into a customs union and agreeing to a common currency (which most EU states have done) diminishes sovereignty. But all EU member states have the right to leave - US states have surrendered all their sovereignty and may not leave the union unilaterally.

A US state has a lot of devolved powers, more than most federal states around the world but they're still states in a federal union.
Perhaps confederation might be a better term to what the EU is heading for - frankly I can see it ending in tears and the EU breaks apart like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the USSR did.

I know, Rich. I believe understand where you are coming from, because I have rather similarly radical views which put me in the minority. Specifically, I am for the prohibition of all addictive/compulsion forming mind-altering and/or judgment-impairing substances, from heroin to alcohol. Point being, even though I disagree with you as strongly as I suspect you would disagree with me, I do not begrudge you your views because I think they come from a place of wanting to reduce harm, which is where my views come from.
Click to expand...

Actually that's an interesting point about drugs. I once berated a fellow poster on her for blithely suggesting it was unconstitutional for the US government to ban heroin.
Now I'm not so sure after another poster made a good case for legalizing all drugs by pointing to the recent experience in Portugal.

Legalizing drugs didn't create too many more addicts and those who existed were no longer underground and stigmatized when seeking treatment for their addiction.
AIDs through shared needles dropped.

In the case of the USA it would slash prison population, crime and the resources used on the futile war on drugs.
It would eliminate drug cartels and significantly reduce violence.
It would also provide much appreciated (not to mention huge) tax revenues.

Check out data on the Portuguese laws. It's worth consideration at least IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jason Warfield said:
I think that what is being missed here is that while, yes, the initial declaration of independence called for 13 different states to leave the Crown to be left to their own devices...and that there was a compact of sorts in the form of the Continental Congress...but again, what is being missed here is the evolution of being 13 separate states unified under a common goal (fighting the Revolution for freedom) to a confederation of states under a weak, central, umbrella government with stronger powers residing into the state which further evolved under the Founders and Framers to become the Constitution whose purpose was to create a strong federal government whose law supersedes state law...with the compromise that states could pass laws on their own for their own good as long as it did not supersede the Constitution.

In doing that, the states stopped being their own "nations" and became a single nation. When the states adopted the Constitution, they gave up sovereign state status they had under the Articles of Confederation, acknowledged that the supreme law resided in the national Constitution and not the state constitution and allowed far greater power to the central government...which elected by the people of the nation, not of a delegation of separate states as in the manner of the Continental Congresses.

Now, there have been, as has been pointed out, tests to this over states's rights vs. the Constitution. Notably, the crisis of 1832 and the Civil War. Both of which established that nullification does not have a place in government nor does the idea that state law is above the Constitution and has been enforced; one by peaceful means, the other by a horrible civil war.

So while one CAN argue an original 13 nation concept...we evolved past that. And it was the Founders and Framers of those 13 nations that created a government where a Constitution that provided law and order over the constitutions of each state and demands each state to be included in the nation, and not be sovereign unto themselves.
Click to expand...

Federal laws only supersedes state laws when they are made in pursuance to the Constitution, and that is defined in Article 1, sections 8,9 and 10. If the States were not sovereign the the whole concept of the 10th amendment is moot. The States didn't surrender their power to be States and independent of the Federal government. The States created the Union and the federal government is the administrator of that Union, it is not the ultimate power. The States and the People hold the ultimate power in this country and the federal government is a servant to that power.
 
Rich2018 said:
IMO, the is too far removed from public accountability.



I think all members of a government branch should represent the people not an institution

Example: if a law was proposed that sought to cut spending on the military and focus spending on a few certain states, senators should vote on the bill on its merits, not what's best for their state.
Click to expand...

You just said:

Rich2018 said:
Senators are politicians and are supposed to reflect their constituents' views.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
You just said:
Click to expand...


Where is the contradiction ?

Senators should represent their constituents (as should congressmen)

But they are representatives NOT delegates.


They should look at the bigger picture and vote what's best all around. So if a bill benefits the nation at large, they should vote for it - even though it might benefit people in another state even more.
 
Rich2018 said:
Where is the contradiction ?

Senators should represent their constituents (as should congressmen)

But they are representatives NOT delegates.


They should look at the bigger picture and vote what's best all around. So if a bill benefits the nation at large, they should vote for it - even though it might benefit people in another state even more.
Click to expand...
Yes, politicians should vote for what's best for their constituents, not what's best for themselves.
 
Samwise said:
Yes, politicians should vote for what's best for their constituents, not what's best for themselves.
Click to expand...

The should reflect their constituents wishes by and large but also judge a bill on its merits and not be afraid to vote it down or vote it in should they feel that's in every's interests.

They are not delegate but representatives.
 
Rich2018 said:
The should reflect their constituents wishes by and large but also judge a bill on its merits and not be afraid to vote it down or vote it in should they feel that's in every's interests.

They are not delegate but representatives.
Click to expand...

politician's job #1: get reelected. Everything else is job #2.
 
Rich2018 said:
Sadly that's the mindset of most of them.

It's a gravy train and a power trip.


Time for Congressional term limits ?
Click to expand...

Time for secession.
 
Samwise said:
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?
Click to expand...

The House of Representatives was devised to be the peoples House. The House of Representatives job is to represent the people as envisioned by the framers. The senate's purpose is to represent the states, not the people. This is why the framers had each state legislature appoint the senators until the 17th Amendment took that task away from the state legislatures and gave it to the people of each state. The framers gave us a balance here. A chamber for the people's representation and a chamber for each state to be represented.

I'm in full agreement with the framers. Although the states have far less power and influence than when the Constitution was drawn up and adopted. Perhaps with all the power now invested in the Federal Government instead of the states, maybe it is time to take a look at the senate. States today are nothing more than lines on a map devoid of the powers they once had. If one wants an omnipotent, all powerful central government, one mass vast direct democracy, then do away with the senate. That would end the republic, the union of the several states which in essence would be dissolved in favor of a huge land mass with no state boundaries or if the lines remained, total meaningless.
 
Perotista said:
The House of Representatives was devised to be the peoples House. The House of Representatives job is to represent the people as envisioned by the framers. The senate's purpose is to represent the states, not the people. This is why the framers had each state legislature appoint the senators until the 17th Amendment took that task away from the state legislatures and gave it to the people of each state. The framers gave us a balance here. A chamber for the people's representation and a chamber for each state to be represented.

I'm in full agreement with the framers. Although the states have far less power and influence than when the Constitution was drawn up and adopted. Perhaps with all the power now invested in the Federal Government instead of the states, maybe it is time to take a look at the senate. States today are nothing more than lines on a map devoid of the powers they once had. If one wants an omnipotent, all powerful central government, one mass vast direct democracy, then do away with the senate. That would end the republic, the union of the several states which in essence would be dissolved in favor of a huge land mass with no state boundaries or if the lines remained, total meaningless.
Click to expand...

Remind me again why the congressmen for say Georgia, do not represent Georgia ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I don't think a branch should be impeached but rather an individual.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's what I meant.

IMO, the judiciery should not be regarded as a branch of government and should be a-political.
Click to expand...

How would that work? I would think elections would have to be removed as a start....
 
Rich2018 said:
Remind me again why the congressmen for say Georgia, do not represent Georgia ?
Click to expand...

Each of our 14 congress critters represent a district in Georgia, but not the state as a whole. Each only represents 1/14th of Georgia. Whereas a senator represents the whole state. Each congress critter were elected by 1/14th of Georgians to represent their district, not the state. Although in today's political era of polarization and ultra high partisanship, they represent their political party much more than the people in their district as do our senators representing their political party more than the people of the whole state.
 
Rich2018 said:
Dividing into political parties gets things done, having all congressmen as independents is a recipe for chaos.

Look at the Italian government with its highly fractured legislature and count the number of governments it has had since WWII.
Click to expand...

But it also creates a large number of things needing to be fixed, not to mention the consequences of massive debt accumulation.

I'll leave the Italians to fix their government, it's the U.S. Federal government I'd like to see fixed.
 
Rich2018 said:
A bit like the Roman empire.

We could just call Trump the emperor and have a one man, one vote system


And Trump would be the man.
Click to expand...

Do you really think falsely representing my message is persuasive? I wrote: "Senators should be selected by the state legislature consent on the governor's appointment" in my message that your quoted. By your totally false response it seems your rapid TDS emotions have blinded you in some fashion. My message makes no reference - directly or indirectly - to President Trump.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
The House should be eliminated. Having to continuously campaign has turned nearly all of them into political hacks - both sides. Most end up in an overwhelming Republican or Democratic district, for which only party insiders matter to them - causing them to be extremely partisan as no election matters except the primary. The general election is completely irrelevant.

Senators should be selected by the state legislature consent on the governor's appointment.
Click to expand...

On that I agree totally, but 1913 fundamentally changed how our Federal government works and THAT is going to be very difficult to fix.
 
Michael Johnson said:
How would that work? I would think elections would have to be removed as a start....
Click to expand...

Judges, should not be elected (neither should sheriffs either)

A judge should face no pressure to deliver what he or she thinks in a ruling in accordance to the law.


The judiciary should not be considered as part of the government.
 
Perotista said:
Each of our 14 congress critters represent a district in Georgia, but not the state as a whole. Each only represents 1/14th of Georgia. Whereas a senator represents the whole state. Each congress critter were elected by 1/14th of Georgians to represent their district, not the state. Although in today's political era of polarization and ultra high partisanship, they represent their political party much more than the people in their district as do our senators representing their political party more than the people of the whole state.
Click to expand...

But they represent the people in part of Georgia and some states only have on congressman.


So if a bill was to the advantage of the state of Georgia, you'd expect them to be favor of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom