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.

[Gass3268]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Atlas is so funny sometimes. If you people had been around in the French Revolution, you'd all be screeching that people "didn't understand" the reasoning behind the Estates General. In fact, we understand the senate perfectly: it was a compromise with a faction of the American elite most afraid of democracy and losing their power (as well as the elite of smaller states worried about being crowded out, a stance which makes no sense in the modern United States). In no other democratic country is the legislative chamber explicitly designed as an anti democratic force given superior status to the actually democratic chamber. At the very least, the senate should be hobbled of its power.

(Also the vague post hoc excuse that the senate somehow protects rural areas is extremely unconvincing)

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

Atlas is so funny sometimes. If you people had been around in the French Revolution, you'd all be screeching that people "didn't understand" the reasoning behind the Estates General. In fact, we understand the senate perfectly: it was a compromise with a faction of the American elite most afraid of democracy and losing their power (as well as the elite of smaller states worried about being crowded out, a stance which makes no sense in the modern United States). In no other democratic country is the legislative chamber explicitly designed as an anti democratic force given superior status to the actually democratic chamber. At the very least, the senate should be hobbled of its power.

(Also the vague post hoc excuse that the senate somehow protects rural areas is extremely unconvincing)

[Reaganfan]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

But we are fastly heading in the opposite direction were the minority is running tough shot over the majority. There is nothing healthy about a system where the GOP is running around like they have a mandate while they loses the popular vote by wider and wider margins

The safeguards are in place for that reason. You can't have Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Indiana, North Carolina, Arizona, ect not have their voices heard because of a few cities on the coastlines.

That's the point.

[Tintrlvr]

One of the stupidest points that leftists have brought up in recent years outside of cultural Marxist nonsense.

IT'S *clap* WHY *clap* WE *clap* HAVE *clap* THE *clap* HOUSE.  

It's all a balance: one figurehead, one based on states as a whole, one based on people in the states and a judiciary to keep all of them in check.

This doesn't make any sense at all, frankly. States aren't special and don't need protection qua states. The environment today is totally different from the 18th century (when states were, if they didn't accede to the Union, essentially separate countries from one another, and even following accession were largely independent, and, just as significantly, when the idea that people actually voted to elect politicians or enact policies in something resembling true democracy was still a distant dream). Moreover, there is no particular reason at all to believe that the Connecticut Compromise was a good idea, notwithstanding that it is (roughly) actually what was implemented.

People who cling to the ideals of the 18th century in arguing against the abolition of the Senate are making no argument at all and might as well be reciting gibberish.

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

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...

Every single block of Los Angeles, Boston, and NYC (except for the smallish # of Republican voting blocks) should be admitted as a new state.

True, the new states will have small populations, but don't you know that the Senate is not supposed to be about representing people, it is about giving the STATES representation. So let the states be represented. I am sure Republicans will have no problem with this.

Note also that each of these new states would have 3 electoral votes in the electoral college, which will make it impossible for a Republican to win the Presidency even if they massively win the national popular vote... but after, don't you know that the popular vote is not supposed to matter for the Presidency?

[Tintrlvr]

Atlas is so funny sometimes. If you people had been around in the French Revolution, you'd all be screeching that people "didn't understand" the reasoning behind the Estates General. In fact, we understand the senate perfectly: it was a compromise with a faction of the American elite most afraid of democracy and losing their power (as well as the elite of smaller states worried about being crowded out, a stance which makes no sense in the modern United States). In no other democratic country is the legislative chamber explicitly designed as an anti democratic force given superior status to the actually democratic chamber. At the very least, the senate should be hobbled of its power.

(Also the vague post hoc excuse that the senate somehow protects rural areas is extremely unconvincing)

Really appreciate putting this so succinctly and articulately.

The real problem is that American elementary schools teach an uncritical interpretation of the Constitution, so Americans, including but not limited to conservative Americans, have a childish and obsessively slavish devotion to the language of the Constitution as it was originally written, notwithstanding that the Constitution was a pretty messy and terrible compromise on which to base a country even when it was enacted, let alone being hopelessly outdated in the modern world. And the Founders thought the country would be open to frequently revising or completely rewriting the Constitution but didn't realize they set the barriers to doing so far too high for it to actually happen.

[MAINEiac4434]

Massive FF

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

States aren't special and don't need protection qua states.

Agreed.

Also, you used the word "qua" --- qua qua qua qua qua qua qua qua qua qua

[Sirius_]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

But we are fastly heading in the opposite direction were the minority is running tough shot over the majority. There is nothing healthy about a system where the GOP is running around like they have a mandate while they loses the popular vote by wider and wider margins

The safeguards are in place for that reason. You can't have Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Indiana, North Carolina, Arizona, ect not have their voices heard because of a few cities on the coastlines.

That's the point.

Those are all really bad examples as they are all decently large states with major cities themselves. And the idea that NYC, Chicago, and LA could determine what happens for the rest of the US is absurd. The math quickly disproves that idea. The "big states having control" thing also only works if everyone in the big states agree on everything, which is absolutely not true.

[Karpatsky]

The entire point is still to protect small states from the laws of a small number of mega states. The states have some independence of one another and the senate is the chamber of Congress meant to represent their interests. The people’s house is meant to represent the interests of the large states. Our constitution is set up that way purposefully and just because one party or the other has a disadvantage in that chamber for a time doesn’t mean you should abolish it.

But gl pushing that as a policy platform in...senate races. Lol.

States aren't real.

[Mr. Smith]

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

Since the Nullification Crisis in the Jacksonian era.

[emailking]

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? What's the point of the provision even being there if it is effectively inoperable? You want it to be self-referential? It's just a framework document, not a theorem.

Alternatively, you could have an amendment strip the Senate of its power without actually abolishing it.

That may have a bit more plausibility as a proposal, but ultimately amounts to the same workaround. I'm not saying you couldn't alter or remove some of its powers, but stripping it of all of its power is effectively abolishing it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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

[Tintrlvr]

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? What's the point of the provision even being there if it is effectively inoperable? You want it to be self-referential? It's just a framework document, not a theorem.

Alternatively, you could have an amendment strip the Senate of its power without actually abolishing it.

That may have a bit more plausibility as a proposal, but ultimately amounts to the same workaround. I'm not saying you couldn't alter or remove some of its powers, but stripping it of all of its power is effectively abolishing it.

I mean, define "all" of its power. I would think a purely advisory Senate like the UK House of Lords or the Canadian Senate would be silly, but there's no question you could do that.

And, yes, clearly they would need to make that section non-amendable for it to be non-amendable. The Constitution has a built-in amendment process, and, unless something is specifically carved out, it's amendable.

Personally, I think even a clause saying that the clause itself is not amendable would be unenforceable because, once amended pursuant to the amendment procedures to remove that clause, it's no longer in the Constitution and thus no longer operable, i.e., you can't actually make something non-amendable even if you are very blatant about it. I also think as a policy matter making any part of the Constitution completely unamendable is simply an unacceptable circumstance and should be viewed as nonjusticiable. But I am not sure a court would agree with me.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[gottsu]

That simply won't happen. Period.

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

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? What's the point of the provision even being there if it is effectively inoperable? You want it to be self-referential? It's just a framework document, not a theorem.

Alternatively, you could have an amendment strip the Senate of its power without actually abolishing it.

That may have a bit more plausibility as a proposal, but ultimately amounts to the same workaround. I'm not saying you couldn't alter or remove some of its powers, but stripping it of all of its power is effectively abolishing it.

I mean, define "all" of its power. I would think a purely advisory Senate like the UK House of Lords or the Canadian Senate would be silly, but there's no question you could do that.

And, yes, clearly they would need to make that section non-amendable for it to be non-amendable. The Constitution has a built-in amendment process, and, unless something is specifically carved out, it's amendable.

The amendment process is itself amendable. That means that you can amend the part where it says, about the amendment process, that you can't get rid of states' representation. It is true that that would be undoubtedly challenged in court, but that is why you pack the Supreme Court (or else make sure that it will rule in favor of you).

Alternatively, you can just pass an amendment that makes the Senate do nothing whatsoever and have no power, never meet, have no place to ever meet, and have its members draw no salaries or benefits of any kind. You could also make it not even have any elected members, but allow states to appoint people to it if they want to (this would be pointless though, since the Senate would do literally nothing).

If you like bicameralism, then you can just create another body via amendment, and call it "Senate 2.0" rather than "Senate." And then you could give "Senate 2.0" whatever powers and the like you think that it should have. The "Senate 2.0" could be set up to be elected in an actual representative/democratic manner using whatever sort of democratic/representative electoral system is desired, with some actual relation to the numbers of voters.

Or if you don't like bicameralism, then you just stick with the Senate being powerless and only have the House. Either way, one of those two things definitely needs to happen, because the current Senate is fundamentally broken and it is the #1 reason why the American system of government is collapsing.

[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

[Senator Incitatus]

Wrong chamber, but recognizing that we can fundamentally alter the American Constitution is a step in the right direction. #AbolishTheHouse

[Adam Griffin]

Maybe it's not the objective historical view, but I see only 1 reason why upper chambers should exist: to be an exclusive chamber, with its members appointed for life terms and/or appointed to shorter terms by state legislatures via indirect elections. As much as I love democracy, the 17th Amendment rendered the Senate a pointless entity (especially given its size relative to the House; 7 states have more Senators than Representatives) - and for the most part, technology has completely eliminated any of the tangible initial concerns wrt representation in the 18th century.

America's oldest act of affirmative action needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history and replaced with a larger unicameral system. The notion that some people should get extra representation because of where they live (which in itself is arbitrarily determined by 250 year-old lines) is fundamentally anti-American in the modern era.  

[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.

[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.