Comments on: Is the U.S. Senate Obsolete?

By: chrisboltssr

chrisboltssr — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:38:55 +0000

I wouldn't say abolish the Senate, but the Constitution to be amended to remove the requirement to elect the Senators. I agree with Name's post in that the responsibility of the Senators need to be turned back over to the States.

By: Is The U.S. Senate Obselete? | Conservative Cabbie

Is The U.S. Senate Obselete? | Conservative Cabbie — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:24:32 +0000

[...] from Vermont has the same say on governance as a Senator representing California. This problem has got much worse since the creation of the constitution: When the United States was founded, the ratio of the [...]

By: cackcon

cackcon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:20:32 +0000

The size of the House really has nothing to do with anything, especially the check against Senate votes. If you want more “accurate” representation, how about an end to rapant gerrymandering? All the House members do nowadays (and the Senate is the same) is represent themselves. Incumbents rule, and the people drool.

By: cackcon

cackcon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:17:41 +0000

Amen and amen. Not surprisingly, the federal courts soon followed suit on a number of important doctrines (commerce clause, incorporation, etc.). After all, it was the new populist Senate which voted on judicial nominees from then on.

By: Dave R.

Dave R. — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:08:43 +0000

I'll accept the argument that small state's Senate influence buys them votes, but not the conclusion that the Senate should therefore be abolished. First, out of a desire for separation of powers, a unicameral legislature is the last thing we should want. Second, the big states are already influential in the House and in Presidential elections; abolishing the Senate would only cement there control, and make “fly-over country” serfs to the major population centers.

I do agree with the other commenters who suggest repealing the 17th amendment as a start. It won't directly help with pork spending, but it will help with state's rights.

By: cackcon

cackcon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:07:35 +0000

You forget that the text of the constitution has become (lamentably) forsaken. That a U.S. Attorney General could give his stamp of approval to the proposed bill to give D.C. a represenative in the House should be evidence enough of how a supposedly “living, breathing document” is all but dead.

By: cackcon

cackcon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:03:46 +0000

Exactly, a Republic is no stronger than the sum of its citizens. Unfortunately for all of us, one political party is hell bent on “dumbing down the masses” to cram their crap sandwiches down our throats. And we keep giving them bigger majorities….

By: ironchefofmunchies

ironchefofmunchies — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:18:39 +0000

The passage of the 17th Amendment in 1912 marked the end of the American Republic. Once the Senate began representing the people (at large) of states it ceased it's original purpose to serve as the voice of the states themselves.

Most people don't undestand the difference, any more than they understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. We have dumbed ourselves down to the point where our citizens assume they are the same thing.

I would close by quoting a very wise man who foresaw this 200 years ago:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Alexis de Tocqueville

By: Tim H.

Tim H. — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:12:40 +0000

While I agree with the underlying motivation for your argument--the encroachment of Federal power outside its Constitutional bounds--I must strongly disagree that the Senate is obsolete. There is a good argument to be made for changing details (maybe how they are elected) so as to return the Senators to their place as representatives of their states, rather than as super-Congressmen.

But I'll strongly defend the equal representation of the small states in the Senate. Let the Senate stay as the "saucer" to cool off the House (to use a famous analogy), even when they block something I want, because they're the best defense the small states have against bullying by the large ones.

Regardless, it is not *possible* to amend the Constitution to change the equal representation of states in the Senate:

In Article V of the Constitution, describing the amendment process, it specifies only one permanently unamendable part of the Constitution:
"...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

By: States and/or Senators Obsolete? « The Right Knight

States and/or Senators Obsolete? « The Right Knight — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:57:47 +0000

[...] Veronique de Rugy at NRO’s Corner, GMU Mercatus Center’s Robert H. Nelson opines here that perhaps the U.S. Senate should be abolished. Mr. Nelson also links to a quarterly [...]

By: Name

Name — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:32:18 +0000

The problem isn't that the structure of the Senate gives power to small states – it's that Senators don't answer to the state governments, as they were originally intended to do under the Constitution. Direct election of Senators has warped the Senate from a level playing field for all of the states to the horse-trading post it has become. It was a clear and decisive blow that has caused federalism to bleed to death. The Senate has a purpose, it just no longer serves that purpose – and that has been decisive in the neutering of the state governments, since they have not had a voice in DC for 70 years.

By: Obsolete « The Rural American

Obsolete « The Rural American — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:29:11 +0000

[...] July 14, 2009 in Uncategorized | Tags: constitution, government, law, politics Over at mercatus.org, Robert Nelson asks, Is the U.S. Senate Obsolete? [...]

By: xutag77

xutag77 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:28:49 +0000

The problem is not the senate, the problem is that house is too small. Every house member cannot properly represent a common group of interests because of the size of the districts. The House should be the individual's shield against federal intervention.

The Senate was designed to be the state's shield against the federal intervention. All the state government has to is threaten its senators with its origianal powers instead of the people's vote and they also will fall into line.