Should the Senate be abolished?

[2952-0-0]

Yes.

[minionofmidas]

That`s the only parliament in the US where voters choose their representatives rather than the other way round!
Reform it by making state`s representation proportional. Maybe elect Senators proportionally, too. (This would only be a change in the larger states - if you have to proportionally fill one seat, it still goes to the top vote getter.)

[A18]

Abolishing the Senate is illegal.

Even if you were to abandon every American principle and try to twist the life out of the Constitution with an amendment, EVERY state would have to ratify it. It'd still be illegal, though, even if ratified.

[minionofmidas]

Abolishing the Senate is illegal.

Even if you were to abandon every American principle and try to twist the life out of the Constitution with an amendment, EVERY state would have to ratify it. It'd still be illegal, though, even if ratified.

Huh?
That`s absurd. How can the Constitution be illegal?
If such an amendment were ratified, it would of course be legal. Not that there's any chance of it happening.

[ATFFL]

WHy, aboloshing the senate would get rid of the last remnant of the old Republic and only fuel the rebellion?



I am such a geek.

[A18]

Abolishing the Senate is illegal.

Even if you were to abandon every American principle and try to twist the life out of the Constitution with an amendment, EVERY state would have to ratify it. It'd still be illegal, though, even if ratified.

Huh?
That`s absurd. How can the Constitution be illegal?
If such an amendment were ratified, it would of course be legal. Not that there's any chance of it happening.

Because it's contrary to our form of government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, it would not be either illegal or impossible to abolish or reduce the powers of the Senate.  What would be almost impossible to achieve would be to change the Senate to anything other than an equal number of Senators per State, as that would require all fifty states to approve such a change.

[A18]

Uh, if the Senate has less power, then each state does not have its equal representation in the Senate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Uh, if the Senate has less power, then each state does not have its equal representation in the Senate.

The Constitution does not require all States to approve all changes to the Senate.  Only those changes that would cause one State to have more Senators than another.  If it did so require, then Amendment XVII would have needed all forty-eight States (now fifty States) to have approved it instead of just the thirty-seven that did so.  So long as all States have the same number of Senators, there is no violation of the equal representation clause no matter how little or how much power is given to the Senate.

[2952-0-0]

That`s the only parliament in the US where voters choose their representatives rather than the other way round!
Reform it by making state`s representation proportional. Maybe elect Senators proportionally, too. (This would only be a change in the larger states - if you have to proportionally fill one seat, it still goes to the top vote getter.)

What about Hillary? She is only a New Yorker because she has a house there.

[A18]

Uh, if the Senate has less power, then each state does not have its equal representation in the Senate.

The Constitution does not require all States to approve all changes to the Senate.  Only those changes that would cause one State to have more Senators than another.  If it did so require, then Amendment XVII would have needed all forty-eight States (now fifty States) to have approved it instead of just the thirty-seven that did so.  So long as all States have the same number of Senators, there is no violation of the equal representation clause no matter how little or how much power is given to the Senate.

No, it's a matter of representation:

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

Its say in the Senate must be equal, and that suffrage is of the nature in which the Senate holds a bicameral role.

[minionofmidas]

That`s the only parliament in the US where voters choose their representatives rather than the other way round!
Reform it by making state`s representation proportional. Maybe elect Senators proportionally, too. (This would only be a change in the larger states - if you have to proportionally fill one seat, it still goes to the top vote getter.)

What about Hillary? She is only a New Yorker because she has a house there.

That's what defines a New Yorker.
She's only a Senator for New York because she was elected. While 90% of the House of Reps have had a hand in drawing their own districts.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Phillip, the two houses have never had equal power.  Only the Senate has the advice and consent function.  The two houses have different functions in the impeachment process.  The Represenatives have the minor right of being the only ones to introduce certain types of legislation.  As a practical matter any amendment that alters the balance of power between the House and the Senate will probably have to be proposed by a convention as it is extremely unlikely that either the ouse or Senate would pass an amendment that would reduce its own power in favor of the other.

[© tweed]

Yes

[A18]

Phillip, the two houses have never had equal power.  Only the Senate has the advice and consent function.  The two houses have different functions in the impeachment process.  The Represenatives have the minor right of being the only ones to introduce certain types of legislation.  As a practical matter any amendment that alters the balance of power between the House and the Senate will probably have to be proposed by a convention as it is extremely unlikely that either the ouse or Senate would pass an amendment that would reduce its own power in favor of the other.

In passing bills. But the advise and consent function is also part of its equal suffrage.

[© tweed]

Yes

And what would abolishing the Senate accomplish?

Fair representation.

[© tweed]

Beautiful Wordage.

But in any sane house of congress, a state of 500000 doesn't get the same represenatation of a state of 31000000.

[electcollfan]

Small states would be trampled by the large ones.
The Senate has, and still is key to maintaining equal representation; we still are a union of 50 states.

[2952-0-0]

Who decided how states were created?

[2952-0-0]

At the very least states ike CA and TX should get more than 2 senators, like 3 or 4. WY and AK have waay fewer than 1% of the population so one senator is more than enough for them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You seem to miss the point of the Senate, exnaderite.  Texas however can have more Senators anytime it want them.  In the treaty of Annexation Texas gained the right to split into as many as 5 seperate States at any time it so chose.  If Califorinia wanted to split into multiple States, I don't think that Congress would be likely to object either.

[Democratic Hawk]

No. It redresses the balance between the large states and small states. If it works, don't fix things.

Dave

[??????????]

These democrats are out of control. Abolish the senate? Get rid of the EC? Whats next? Repeal the tenth amendment?

[KEmperor]

The results of this idiotic poll speak for themselves.  Go for a serious one next time.

[2952-0-0]

I know... how about we carve a state where UT, CO, AZ, and NM intersect and make a circle with a radius of 1 mile around it. As soon as three people settle into it, we can claim 0 unemployment and the best economy of the country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!