Abolish the Senate???

"Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth; a body, many of the Members of which are representatives neither of a State nor of its people, but solely of certain predatory combinations, and a body which, by reason of the corruption often attending the election of its Members, has furnished the gravest public scandals in the history of the nation. . . ."

Preamble to a constitutional amendment introduced in the House of Representatives on April 27, 1911, by Victor Berger of Wisconsin

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

I knew Mitch McConnell had been around forever, but he already was creating precedents -- and then ignoring his own precedents -- all the way back in 1911?

MethDozer · M

@dancingtongue abolish the Senate? Yay or nay?

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@MethDozer Fix it rather than abolish it. A more stable body with longer 6-year terms to balance the 2-year mobocracy in the House -- particularly in these days of perennial campaigning -- has a useful purpose. Even the existing filibuster rule was useful when it was used judiciously for a purpose rather than to just obstruct. How do you fix it? Well, all comes back to electing statesmen rather than partisan robots bought by lobbyists, which leads us back to campaign finance reform, which leads us back to a new SCOTUS.

MethDozer · M

@dancingtongue But it is inherently undemocratic and historically been the chamber of congress to supress the will of the of people in favor of the will of the rich and powerful minority. The fact it lends equal representation to states reguardless of its population size while also being th much more powerful branch of congress means it undermines democracy.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@MethDozer I would agree that when Senators were selected by State Legislators rather than elected, it wasn't democratic. I -- like a lot of people -- though the "one person, one vote" movement that made Senators an elected position would help get rid of it being a club for the rich and powerful, but they just started buying the elections and SCOTUS declared them "individuals" with free speech rights. Free speech rights with a lot of money to spend buying that free speech. The equal representation to states regardless of population I believe would serve a useful purpose if you fixed campaign financing and the filibuster rules. And I say that as a resident of the most populous state. As for the Senate being the most powerful branch, that depends upon one's view: they do have advise & consent powers on Presidential appointees including judges and sit in judgment on those impeached; but the House controls the purse strings and impeachment proceedings.