Actually, it was not an eception and you seem to be continuing to post in an historical vacuum. The trend for at least 50 years (and with notable examples in the 30 years that preceeded Ike), has been that a Senate dominated by the President’s party has had a more obstructionist policy toward the President than an opposition party. Even the current President had some opposition in his own party prior to September, 2001.
Just as Eisenhower got more legislation passed through the Senate following the Republican loss of control of the Senate in mid-term, so Clinton was actually able to move more bills, (excepting his court nominees), under the Republicans. While Johnson, personally, was able to move a lot of legislation, Kennedy and Carter were not so successful. On the other hand, Nixon was quite successful working with his “opposition” Senate while Reagan also encountered a fair amount of responsible objections from “his” Senate. So, basically, the notion that a Senate majority in the President’s party automatically becomes an Executive rubber stamp is simply a declaration unsupported by facts.
And what was Eisenhower known as? I believe it was the “Do-nothing President”. Anyway, just a little side-note.
Let me see if I can get this train back up on its tracks.
While it is undeniable that there does exist a degree of partisanship within the Senate, that is not exactly what I was referring to as an extension of the Exectutive Branch.
What I mean by the Senate being an extension of the Exectutive Branch is that the Senate of today emulates the Executive Branch of government by concentrating on issues on national importance, rather than its original role of representing the State’s interests.
Well, the Senate has always concentrated on issues of national importance…that’s the whole point of the Senate and House of Reps…to pass laws that apply to the country as a whole. However, today, do Senators make it a practice to vote against the interests of their states? What evidence do you have that they do?
This argument is a red herring. Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole weren’t running against each other. Comparing their credentials makes sense only if you are comparing their credentials to their opponents’ credentials, not each other’s. There were plenty of pre-17th amendment senators whose credentials didn’t compare favorably to Daniel Webster’s but, unless they were in contention for Webster’s seat, their relative merits are beside the point.
Only by either Democratic partisans looking to talk down his actions or by those who are historically ignorant.
Aside from not being what you originally said, this is simply silly. On what issues was the Senate to represent the states’ interest except on issues of national importance?
The Congressional powers include:
to collect taxes and duties, (i.e., taxes on foreign goods);
to borrow money on the credit of the U.S.;
to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states;
to decide the laws of naturalization (and make bankruptcy laws uniform throughout the nation;
to coin money and regulate its value;
to establish a national postal service;
to regulate patents;
to establish Federal courts;
to define piracy and other “laws against nations”;
to declare war;
to raise an army and navy;
to call the militias for defence (and to suppress insurrection);
to write all the laws to provide for the preceeding powers.
In addition, the Senate was given the power to withhold consent for the President’s choices of justices of the courts and ambassadors.
Seems like a pretty good list of “national interests” to me.
If you are about to claim that the Senators are supposed to vote without considering the national interest, I will need to see something that supports that claim, either in the minutes of the Constitutional convention (or the private letters emanating from it) or among the Federalist or Anti-Federalaist Papers. Otherwise it will appear that you are simply trying to impose a personal conviction on the role of the Senate that is wholly outside all U.S. history, not just the last 80+ years.
Alternatively, if you are about to claim that Senators no longer vote to follow the interests of their own states, I will ask (as I roll on the floor, laughing), that you provide some evidence that Senators have been voting against their states in anything resembling large numbers.
Actually, I like the OP. If senators were appointed rather than elected, companies would have to bribe all of the state senators, rather than the relatively few national ones. Though everyone would still be corrupt, no one company could easily bribe their way into the lawbooks like they do now coughdisney microsoft phillip-morriscough
Well, do federal pork projects for specific areas count as “voting against their states”? I think if they pass a law where general funds are used, to, say, build a bridge in Alaska, a senator from, say, Texas, is “voting against his State” in that funds from those he represents are being used, nationally, for the benefit of another state.
I’d imagine that sort of thing is at least one of the reasons behind the state-appointed senate.
Once again, Razorsharp, my bullshit alarm goes off- you don’t really care a whit about Republicanism or Democracy for the purposes of this article. What you care about is the “incremental socialization of America”. You are a bit more transparent here than in the Roe debate, however. You make it clear that the reason you don’t like the current Senate election process is that you dislike the policy you’ve seen enacted.
For those of us who think administrative agencies are absolutely necessary (if imperfect, currently) to deal with problems like toxic exposure that no other area of law handles adequately, or approve of the (wildy false, but lets go with it) progressive power of this system… why on Earth would we want to change it?
Again, I urge you to stop buring your substantive beliefs in the guise of procedural argument.
I would expect senators chosen by state legistlatures to be much more state-centric. Right now, not too many voters really pay much attention to voting records. State legislators, on the other hand, would most likely ALL be intimately familar with the voting records of their 2 senators. This would apply equally as well to pork projects as well as legitemate issues. It’s really unclear if this would improve things or make them worse.
We’re pretty much in the land of speculation here, so my guess is that the vast majortiy of people wouldn’t notice a difference other than that there was one or two less annoying campaigns every few years. What percentage of the voting public can even name their 2 senators, anyway?
Yes, razorsharp, I used the assumption that the elections would be conducted in the state legislatures based on party lines. Under most circumstances, it went by party lines before 1914, so why would that change?
I’m glad that you got you a good laugh, but I find absolutly nothing funny about our elected leaders groveling at foreign lobbyists to persue New World Order globalism (which is really New World Communism) at the expense of the citizenry of the United States.
The overwhelming majority of American Citizens want immigration reform. But, despite even a “War on Terror”, immigration continues unabated. Immigration has become such a rubber-stamp proceedure that several of the DEAD terrorist hijackers, that attacked the World Trade Center, received visa extensions even after 9-11.
The overwhelming majority of the citizenry want to reign-in foreign aid, but the Senate continues to allocate more and more of the American taxpayer’s money to the benefit of foreign nations through direct foreign-aid. On top of that, the Senate allocates even more indirect foreign-aid to be thrown down various global rat-holes through such unaccountable global entities as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t recognize the clause within the Constitution that authorizes Congress to appropriate the citizen’s money for the benefit of a foreign country.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the existence of this particular Constitutional authority that our lawmakers have usurped.
Face it, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that some members of the Senate now hold more allegience to foreign lobbyists than their constituency. And with their coffers open to “foreign investment”, what’s the worry.
What you appear to actually mean is that when polls are sponsored by special interest groups with slanted questions, (F.A.I.R., etc.), those groups are able to then claim an “overwhelming majority” supports their positions. I have seen no groundswell of support for your particular brand of xenophobia. (In addition, in regards to foreign aid, since all budget bills must originate in the House, an attack on the Senate simply for approving the recommendations of the House seems a bit disingenuous. It seems that your “overwhelming majority” is not even bothering to speak to the legislators over whom they were allowed to have direct elections in the original Constitution.)
ahem Will you please clarify something? “Federalism,” my entire life, I have understood in the American political usage to NOT mean, as you apparently use it, “federal government supremacy”, but rather the reservation and devolution of powers to the sovereign states, one of the very founding principles of this Republic. Yet recently here and in other discussion fora I have begun earing it used to describe what I always knew as centralism, or federalization (the taking onto the feds of issues of local jurisdiction). Are we seeing a redefinition of the term, for the sake of hostility to what is called the “Federal” Government?
Anyway you can have “republicanism” (indirect representive participation, reservation of rights, separation-of-powers) in a non-federal, unitary state, so it still sounds “wrong” to me to say that it is the opposite of “federalism”. Unless, once again, we’re trying to associate the words to specific current political institutions.
“Xenophobia” That’s one of those words whose meaning has evolved into somewhat of a swearword that is commonly used to smear an antagonist, somewhat like the way that the term “prejudice” is bandied about.
In the way that “prejudice” could often be more accurately discribed as “postjudice”, meaning that one’s judgement has been determined by experience rather than pre-judging without experience, the same comparison can be applied to “xenophobia”
Xenphobia is defined as the “unreasonable” fear of something foreign. Like “prejudice”, it is often misused. What is often labeled as “xenophobia” is, more often than not, someone’s personal fear or dislike that has been acquired through experience rather than unreasonable prejudice.