4 ms·

>>> (the senate has so much power and seems designed to be antidemocratic for a start). That is because it is.... and that is a GOOD thing The Senate is desi

by syshum 5y ago

>>> (the senate has so much power and seems designed to be antidemocratic for a start). That is because it is.... and that is a GOOD thing The Senate is designed to be the State's (i.e the state governments) representative in the federal government, We are a union of 50 independent states, people seem to forget that. it is the United *States* of America, The House of Representatives is the People i.e the citizens chamber, and the Senate is the States chamber of government it was not until 1913 that Senators were elected by voters, before then State legislators appointed the Senators and IMO we should return to that model

LatteLazy 5y ago
I think we're mostly in agreement: the senate is NOT a democratic institution. Whether it should be or not is another matter. Fyi, I'd say the senate is more like a house of Lords. Before it was required to be elected it was routinely bought by the richest interests in a state. It represented the interests of the Uber rich. Again, not a judgment just an observation...
- bhupy 5y ago
  The US Senate pre-17A was more akin to the EU upper house, the Council of the EU. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2016.1188549 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2016.11... Same with Germany’s upper house, the Bundesrat, today.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  The senate is rather like the House of Lords 200 years ago. Many countries have pseudo-democratic or undemocratic upper houses, but they’ve generally been neutered to some extent over time. The US hasn’t done this (no Parliament act, say).
rayiner 5y ago
Agreed. And state legislators appointing senators would make them a lot more visible and make state elections more important.
- dctoedt 5y ago
  > And state legislators appointing senators would make them a lot more visible and make state elections more important. At the very least, it's debatable whether a state legislature's (hypothesized) collective power to appoint U.S. senators would be an especially-salient consideration for voters in individual legislative races. Quaere whether any light might be shed by data available from before adoption of the 17th Amendment.
dctoedt 5y ago
> We are a union of 50 independent states, people seem to forget that. We haven't forgotten it because it's not the case: First, the Constitution's opening words are "We, the People of the United States," NOT "The States of the United States ...." Second, the issue was conclusively settled at Appomattox and with the ensuing enactments of the 14th and 15th Amendments. > The Senate is designed to be the State's (i.e the state governments) representative in the federal government In the modern era that might still be viable if the Senate's power were only to veto enactments by the House, perhaps by a supermajority vote — and with that veto power being waived after X days — instead of what it is now, i.e., a roadblock even for popular House bills. The old "cooling saucer" notion seems outdated.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>"The States of the United States ...." That would not be proper English nor make any sense linguistically. If you believe that the Founders thought the States were not independent, and sovereign in their own right then you clearly have not read the Federalist Papers. Take a close look at Federalist 17 as an example If the States were not separate but equal, i.e the foundational principle of our style of governance, then why call the nation the United *States*, why not just call it America or some other name all together No the founders clearly believed the States should not be servant to the Federal Government, nor should the Federal Government be servant to individual state governments. >>Second, the issue was conclusively settled at Appomattox and with the ensuing enactments of the 14th and 15th Amendments. I disagree that it was conclusively settled, nor do I agree that application of the federal constitution to the states by default makes the states Subservient vassals of the federal government Further last I check the passage of an Amendment requires the ratification of said amendment by 3/4 of States thus proving they are in fact not vassals as if they were then their consent would not be needed. >In the modern era that might still be viable if the Senate's power were only to veto enactments by the House, perhaps by a supermajority vote Yea... no That does not make any sense historically, legislatively or logically. Having a chamber that can only act in the negative would be a pointless chamber of government. Bills should be assumed to be Bad and at every level require affirmation. Your process of legislative review makes about as much sense as a criminal system on the principle of Guilty until Proven innocent. Laws should be hard to pass, laws should be extremely hard to pass, and federal laws should be almost impossible to pass ensuring the federal government does very little and most governance is done at the local level where it should be done. In general the government that governs the least, governs the best, and this is quadruple true for a Federal Government

by syshum 5y ago

LatteLazy 5y ago

I think we're mostly in agreement: the senate is NOT a democratic institution. Whether it should be or not is another matter. Fyi, I'd say the senate is more like a house of Lords. Before it was required to be elected it was routinely bought by the richest interests in a state. It represented the interests of the Uber rich. Again, not a judgment just an observation...

bhupy 5y ago
The US Senate pre-17A was more akin to the EU upper house, the Council of the EU. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2016.1188549 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2016.11... Same with Germany’s upper house, the Bundesrat, today.
rsynnott 5y ago
The senate is rather like the House of Lords 200 years ago. Many countries have pseudo-democratic or undemocratic upper houses, but they’ve generally been neutered to some extent over time. The US hasn’t done this (no Parliament act, say).

rayiner 5y ago

Agreed. And state legislators appointing senators would make them a lot more visible and make state elections more important.

dctoedt 5y ago
> And state legislators appointing senators would make them a lot more visible and make state elections more important. At the very least, it's debatable whether a state legislature's (hypothesized) collective power to appoint U.S. senators would be an especially-salient consideration for voters in individual legislative races. Quaere whether any light might be shed by data available from before adoption of the 17th Amendment.

dctoedt 5y ago

> We are a union of 50 independent states, people seem to forget that. We haven't forgotten it because it's not the case: First, the Constitution's opening words are "We, the People of the United States," NOT "The States of the United States ...." Second, the issue was conclusively settled at Appomattox and with the ensuing enactments of the 14th and 15th Amendments. > The Senate is designed to be the State's (i.e the state governments) representative in the federal government In the modern era that might still be viable if the Senate's power were only to veto enactments by the House, perhaps by a supermajority vote — and with that veto power being waived after X days — instead of what it is now, i.e., a roadblock even for popular House bills. The old "cooling saucer" notion seems outdated.

syshum 5y ago
>>"The States of the United States ...." That would not be proper English nor make any sense linguistically. If you believe that the Founders thought the States were not independent, and sovereign in their own right then you clearly have not read the Federalist Papers. Take a close look at Federalist 17 as an example If the States were not separate but equal, i.e the foundational principle of our style of governance, then why call the nation the United *States*, why not just call it America or some other name all together No the founders clearly believed the States should not be servant to the Federal Government, nor should the Federal Government be servant to individual state governments. >>Second, the issue was conclusively settled at Appomattox and with the ensuing enactments of the 14th and 15th Amendments. I disagree that it was conclusively settled, nor do I agree that application of the federal constitution to the states by default makes the states Subservient vassals of the federal government Further last I check the passage of an Amendment requires the ratification of said amendment by 3/4 of States thus proving they are in fact not vassals as if they were then their consent would not be needed. >In the modern era that might still be viable if the Senate's power were only to veto enactments by the House, perhaps by a supermajority vote Yea... no That does not make any sense historically, legislatively or logically. Having a chamber that can only act in the negative would be a pointless chamber of government. Bills should be assumed to be Bad and at every level require affirmation. Your process of legislative review makes about as much sense as a criminal system on the principle of Guilty until Proven innocent. Laws should be hard to pass, laws should be extremely hard to pass, and federal laws should be almost impossible to pass ensuring the federal government does very little and most governance is done at the local level where it should be done. In general the government that governs the least, governs the best, and this is quadruple true for a Federal Government