John Dingell: Abolish the Senate

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Guys, guys. The Senate is a sacred institution! It allows the states to have a say in governance! We cant get rid of it.

 We should instead admit DC and PR as states! 4 easy senators! Maybe some of the islands as well...

Actually, Puerto Rico would most likely be a purple state like Florida. Puerto Ricans on the island are generally much more conservative than Puerto Ricans that have lived on the mainland for decades.

Puerto Rico would most likely have 1 D, 1 R senators or maybe even 2 R senators.

In terms of internal politics, yes they are more moderate, but after what happened with the Hurricane and the blantant anti-Hispanic racism of the Republcian party there is no way I could see them electing a Republican (or whatever the local party is that affaliates with Republicans) to Congress.

The Puerto Ricans that moved to Florida actually weren't as strongly Democratic as many people thought they would be. One of the many reasons why Nelson & Gillum lost.

Guys, guys. The Senate is a sacred institution! It allows the states to have a say in governance! We cant get rid of it.

 We should instead admit DC and PR as states! 4 easy senators! Maybe some of the islands as well...

Actually, Puerto Rico would most likely be a purple state like Florida. Puerto Ricans on the island are generally much more conservative than Puerto Ricans that have lived on the mainland for decades.

Puerto Rico would most likely have 1 D, 1 R senators or maybe even 2 R senators.

Unlikely. While you are correct in addressing the stances of many Puerto Ricans, it should be noted that Hispanics in the states are also rather Conservative on a number of issues, same with African Americans. Peurto Rico would likely, like a sizable amount of the US Hispanic population, disagree with the Democrats socially, but support them due to economics, systemic racism, financial support, among other political factors.

I'm African-American myself I know this very well lol.

Anyways, PR wouldn't necessarily have 2 Democratic senators "easily". DC is without a doubt going to have 2 Democratic senators.

However, no matter what, PR and DC should become states.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Career politician in Congress for > 50 years = HP

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

When did people start bringing up post-coup government reformation fantasies as legit political platforms?

When it entered even the remotest parts of the realm of possibility.

There could very well be a point in the next 20 years where the senate tries to block popular legislation passed by the house and the president just says “I’ll sign it’, sparking a major constitutional crisis...since he/she could just have the federal government execute the law without senate passage.

That's a horrifying possibility and the answer to it should be to make the Senate stronger, rather than abolish it, to make sure that a President can't tear down our constitution in that manner.

Or, rather than attempting to block Democracy, you could instead propose to reform it to make it democratic.

History has shown that if you attempt to block democracy, this eventually leads to revolution. That is what happened in Russia in the time of the czars, what happened in France in the time of King Louis, etc.

It is better to reform than to increase the pressure that will otherwise inevitably rise for revolution.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There is no way you could get 3/4 of the stated to agree to diminish the power of the senate .


Thanks to the constitution, the senate will never be abolished or even have its power reduced

You admit a couple hundred (or thousand, or however many need be) new states, with each new state consisting of 1 block in Los Angeles, or with each new state consisting of only the homes of carefully selected activists who have pledged to support the abolition of the Senate.

Then you can get 3/4 of the states to agree to it, no problem.

LMAO they couldn't break up CA into 3 states, let alone trying to break it up in hundreds. Also that would never happen because that would destroy completely the Governability of those Areas.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

When did people start bringing up post-coup government reformation fantasies as legit political platforms?

When it entered even the remotest parts of the realm of possibility.

There could very well be a point in the next 20 years where the senate tries to block popular legislation passed by the house and the president just says “I’ll sign it’, sparking a major constitutional crisis...since he/she could just have the federal government execute the law without senate passage.

That's a horrifying possibility and the answer to it should be to make the Senate stronger, rather than abolish it, to make sure that a President can't tear down our constitution in that manner.

Or, rather than attempting to block Democracy, you could instead propose to reform it to make it democratic.

History has shown that if you attempt to block democracy, this eventually leads to revolution. That is what happened in Russia in the time of the czars, what happened in France in the time of King Louis, etc.

It is better to reform than to increase the pressure that will otherwise inevitably rise for revolution.

Those are Monarchies. This is a democracy. The anti-democratic forces are the ones who demand that any obstacle to their desired populist reforms be removed.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

When did people start bringing up post-coup government reformation fantasies as legit political platforms?

When it entered even the remotest parts of the realm of possibility.

There could very well be a point in the next 20 years where the senate tries to block popular legislation passed by the house and the president just says “I’ll sign it’, sparking a major constitutional crisis...since he/she could just have the federal government execute the law without senate passage.

That's a horrifying possibility and the answer to it should be to make the Senate stronger, rather than abolish it, to make sure that a President can't tear down our constitution in that manner.

Or, rather than attempting to block Democracy, you could instead propose to reform it to make it democratic.

History has shown that if you attempt to block democracy, this eventually leads to revolution. That is what happened in Russia in the time of the czars, what happened in France in the time of King Louis, etc.

It is better to reform than to increase the pressure that will otherwise inevitably rise for revolution.

Those are Monarchies. This is a democracy. The anti-democratic forces are the ones who demand that any obstacle to their desired populist reforms be removed.

The United States is most certainly not a Democracy. We have a President who was elected - yes - but he was elected with a minority of the vote. And the Republican Senate was likewise elected - yes - but with the minority of the vote. Rule of the minority is not democracy, it is tyranny.

If you stop to think about what you are saying for a moment, you ought to feel a sense of shame for pretending to support democracy and calling those who support democracy "anti-democratic" when you yourself are the one who is speaking out against democracy.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

There is no way you could get 3/4 of the stated to agree to diminish the power of the senate .


Thanks to the constitution, the senate will never be abolished or even have its power reduced

You admit a couple hundred (or thousand, or however many need be) new states, with each new state consisting of 1 block in Los Angeles, or with each new state consisting of only the homes of carefully selected activists who have pledged to support the abolition of the Senate.

Then you can get 3/4 of the states to agree to it, no problem.

LMAO they couldn't break up CA into 3 states, let alone trying to break it up in hundreds. Also that would never happen because that would destroy completely the Governability of those Areas.

They can be states for a week or so, pass the amendments to fix the deep rooted structural problems with American government, and then can be re-incorporated back into California. So it really will have no effect on governability.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There is no way you could get 3/4 of the stated to agree to diminish the power of the senate .


Thanks to the constitution, the senate will never be abolished or even have its power reduced

You admit a couple hundred (or thousand, or however many need be) new states, with each new state consisting of 1 block in Los Angeles, or with each new state consisting of only the homes of carefully selected activists who have pledged to support the abolition of the Senate.

Then you can get 3/4 of the states to agree to it, no problem.

LMAO they couldn't break up CA into 3 states, let alone trying to break it up in hundreds. Also that would never happen because that would destroy completely the Governability of those Areas.

They can be states for a week or so, pass the amendments to fix the deep rooted structural problems with American government, and then can be re-incorporated back into California. So it really will have no effect on governability.

LOL Thats not even close to how things work. For the state to be broken up they would have to vote on a ballot initiative and then I believe the US Congress has to approve it as well.


Then to reincorporate the state they have to vote to pass another ballot initiative and each and every one of those new 100 hundred states have to approve the initiative(I believe even when breaking up each new proposed state has to approve it as well)

[Orser67]

My usual spiel that you can't abolish the Senate without the consent of all 50 states as no Constitutional Amendment can strip a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. (Note: no suffrage is not suffrage even if it is "equal" in a mathematical sense.) And good luck getting every last state to agree, much less 3/4 ths.

Not that this would happen anyway (due to the difficulty of passing an amendment), but all you need is a constitutional amendment removing the equal suffrage part of Article V, followed by another amendment changing the Senate.

Uggh, why is this always brought up with this issue.

Did they really need to spell out that you can't change the part that lists what you can't change?

Yes. Article 5 could easily have said that "the Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to [the other articles of] this Constitution." But they left out the part in square brackets. The article even expressly states what can't be amended and doesn't include itself. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would assume that Article V is unamendable when the text of the Constitution states the opposite.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think this all comes to a head in 2020 when Trump wins re-election with a 4 point popular vote deficit and the Democrat gets over 50%.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

LOL Thats not even close to how things work. For the state to be broken up they would have to vote on a ballot initiative and then I believe the US Congress has to approve it as well.

Obviously Congress needs to approve it - you really want to have a Trifecta when doing this. As for any possible issues regarding ballot initiatives in CA, I don't think you are right that that is necessary, but even supposing you are correct, it is pretty much irrelevant because you can just do it in Boston or wherever else instead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even supposing you are right, that there are problems with re-incorporating the temporary states back into California, that is entirely irrelevant because you can just pass another amendment to make whatever problem there is go away. For example, an amendment can be passed saying "The states of ___insert-list-here____ shall be automatically re-incorporated back into Massachusetts on the date of ___insert-date-here___."

In the end, the only way any of these things are actually insurmountable problems is if all you want to do is just close your eyes and cover your ears.

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL Thats not even close to how things work. For the state to be broken up they would have to vote on a ballot initiative and then I believe the US Congress has to approve it as well.

Obviously Congress needs to approve it - you really want to have a Trifecta when doing this. As for any possible issues regarding ballot initiatives in CA, I don't think you are right that that is necessary, but even supposing you are correct, it is pretty much irrelevant because you can just do it in Boston or wherever else instead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even supposing you are right, that there are problems with re-incorporating the temporary states back into California, that is entirely irrelevant because you can just pass another amendment to make whatever problem there is go away. For example, an amendment can be passed saying "The states of ___insert-list-here____ shall be automatically re-incorporated back into Massachusetts on the date of ___insert-date-here___."

In the end, the only way any of these things are actually insurmountable problems is if all you want to do is just close your eyes and cover your ears.

A court blocked an attempt to break CA up into 3 states , what makes you think they wouldn’t to breaking it up into several hundreds

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

A court blocked an attempt to break CA up into 3 states , what makes you think they wouldn’t to breaking it up into several hundreds

Old School Republican:



Again, even supposing you are right, just do it in MA.

But there is no reason why when states break into 2, it has to be done with a ballot initiative. The CA state legislature, for example, is perfectly capable of approving it.

Or the MA state legislature.

Or whoever. You only need a single state and a Congress that is willing to accept the new states temporarily in order to do this, also probably a friendly President/Senate/SCOTUS (or a newly packed SCOTUS just to be on the safe side).

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I think this all comes to a head in 2020 when Trump wins re-election with a 4 point popular vote deficit and the Democrat gets over 50%.

If that happens there will be hell to pay and the government will have 0 legitimacy.

[Beet]

America is a far more decent country than its laws are allowed to reflect thanks to the Senate. In 1922, the House passed an anti-lynching bill with the support of Warren Harding. It was blocked in the Senate. Three anti-lynching bills passed the House between 1890 and 1952. During this time about 4,700 people were lynched.

[The Free North]

You know, Democrats used to have 2 senators from North Dakota. They had a majority leader from South Dakota. They could win in places like Alaska, Louisiana, and (until recently) Indiana. They never complained about how undemocratic the chamber was then.

Perhaps the problem is not that the Senate is some ill-planned political abomination, but that through poor political calculation, Democrats have joined Republicans in becoming unelectable in parts of the country. A once national party is now regional, but its clearly the founders fault.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It should be, but we also need to not have one family control a House seat for over 85 years.

[LabourJersey]

Guys, guys. The Senate is a sacred institution! It allows the states to have a say in governance! We cant get rid of it.

 We should instead admit DC and PR as states! 4 easy senators! Maybe some of the islands as well...

Statehood for Guam can be a compromise. In those straw polls they have every election Bush won it twice. But imagine candidates flying to Guam to give stump speeches...

[Progressive Pessimist]

He is absolutely right. It's one of many antiquated vestiges in our increasingly apparent flawed political system.

[Roronoa D. Law]

I think the Senate is becoming outdated especially if forecasts are true that half of America will live in 8 states by 2040. But I wouldn't count the Democrats out of a path in the Senate if the Republican trends in rural areas are any indication. The Democrats gains in suburban America might come in waves were urban holdouts such as Anchorage, Greenville, Tulsa, Whicita, and Billings may look different in 10-15 years. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

When did people start bringing up post-coup government reformation fantasies as legit political platforms?

Fwiw I have long held this opinion, even before the Dems lost the senate in 2014. I'm a democratic fundamentalist, and think that all countries should work under democratic, one person one vote systems. I recognise that this is not a likely change (and it would be a mistake for the American left to focus too much on the issue due to the optics); but to me the senate has always been a stain on America's democratic status.

[Green Line]

The Senate really isn’t that unfair to Democrats, especially not up until very recently.  They have 2 senators for Vermont, 2 from NH, 2 from DE, 2 from Hawaii, 2 from RI, 1 from ME, 1 from MT, 2 from NM.  These are all small states.  The popular vote argument doesnt hold water at all.  Senate elections are very very different in each state.  The only fair national vote to look at is the House vote, which Republicans won in 2016.

[Former President tack50]

Guys, guys. The Senate is a sacred institution! It allows the states to have a say in governance! We cant get rid of it.

 We should instead admit DC and PR as states! 4 easy senators! Maybe some of the islands as well...

Actually, Puerto Rico would most likely be a purple state like Florida. Puerto Ricans on the island are generally much more conservative than Puerto Ricans that have lived on the mainland for decades.

Puerto Rico would most likely have 1 D, 1 R senators or maybe even 2 R senators.

Actually, I wonder if Puerto Rico would instead just keep their own 2 party system (Popular Democratic vs New Progressive) and not switch to Standard Republican/Democrat politics.

In any case if that happens, Popular Democratic senators will be de facto Democrats while New Progressive senators will be split

[BigSerg]

An abolition of the Senate would cause a rebellion in the conservative states. The Senate is the only reason why there were no new attempts at independence.

[Green Line]

Its also very, very peculiar that Democrats are just now finding a problem with the Senate.  I don't remember this when we had Majority Leader Harry Reid from 2010-2014?