Do we need the Senate?

[Marley23]

The House is certainly less deliberative. As tomndebb noted and a couple of other people described, the House is more sensitive to the whims of the public, and because Senators don’t have to campaign all the time, they inject a little bit of sanity into the process.

[BrainGlutton]

Earlier GD threads of relevance:

Do Away With The U.S. Senate?

Time to repeal 17th amendment?

The United States should convert to a parliamentary system

Which is better: A one-house legislature, or a two-house legislature?

Should the United States Senate be abolished?

Another reason to repeal the 17th Amendment

Presidential vs. parliamentary system: Which is better?

Call to Repeal the 17th Amendment

[Ravenman]

@Common Tater

I suppose it’s “better” if you want a more democratic, i.e. answerable to the public, yes. Except, that’s the function of the House, not the Senate.

Stop dancing around the issue and answer the questions Guinastasia and I have asked. How have the Constitution and the Senate been weakened? Be specific.

[Common_Tater]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: The House is not any less a “deliberative” body, just because it represents equal-population districts, has fewer members than the Senate, and serves for two-year instead of six-year terms.

It is in the sense that, theoretically at least, the Senate has the provision for unlimited debate, unlike the House.

[Common_Tater]

@Diogenes the Cynic

A pure, unfiltered democracy would be a nightmare. The people are morons. They need to be buffered.

That was the sentiment and the impetus behind the framers establishing a bicameral legislature, wasn’t it?

[BrainGlutton]

@Common Tater

It is in the sense that, theoretically at least, the Senate has the provision for unlimited debate, unlike the House.

A product of its rules, not the Constitution. IOW, the Framers never intended either body would be more “deliberative” than the other. Show me where that idea is even mentioned in The Federalist or any of the notes on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

A product of its rules, not the Constitution. IOW, the Framers never intended either body would be more “deliberative” than the other. Show me where that idea is even mentioned in The Federalist or any of the notes on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention.

From Federalist 62 (bolding mine)

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.

Second. ** necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.** Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

[BrainGlutton]

Ignorance smashed!

[Common_Tater]

@BrainGlutton

Ignorance smashed!

At least you admit when you’re mistaken! Bravo…

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

The Emperor has just disbanded the Imperial Senate.

[BrainGlutton]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

The Emperor has just disbanded the Imperial Senate.

I believe the word is “dissolved.”

In this case, using sulphuric acid.

[FRDE]

When I first started studying politics at Uni (in the UK), I reckoned that one house would do fine.

I rapidly revised my views, the House of Lords should dance a ceremonial conga with frilly silk knickers on their heads, 50% of their members should be selected on the basis of inbreeding and the inability to keep awake for 10 minutes.

They should look like a bunch of idiots, so when they do rear up, it is clear that something very wrong is going on. I’m actually quite in favour of people buying seats, there is no way that they will stay bought.

The American constitution sort of mimics the UK setup, but the Monarch in the UK is someone who can be sardonic in private to the UK equivalent of the President, and our House of Lords is generally packed with fairly astute geriatrics.

I approve of checks and balances, but with the right cheques and bank balances I would approve of a monocameral house - provided I could live elsewhere.

[BrainGlutton]

@FRDE

I approve of checks and balances, but with the right cheques and bank balances I would approve of a monocameral house - provided I could live elsewhere.

Nitpick: You’re mixing Greek and Latin roots – the correct word is unicameral. (Also known as a dromedary – as distrinct from a bicameral or Bactrian.)

[Ludovic]

So dromedary legislatures are safer: because they only have one hump we don’t have to worry about BOHICA?

[BrainGlutton]

@Ludovic

So dromedary legislatures are safer: because they only have one hump we don’t have to worry about BOHICA?

Had to look that one up . . .

[John_Mace]

If we had to get rid of one House of Congress, I’d vote for getting rid of the House of Representatives. Does anyone ever listen to the blather that comes out of some of its members-- like the latest from Rep. V. Goode, R-VA. That’s not all that unusual and there are nutcases on both sides of the aisle.

[tomndebb]

From John Mace’s link, quoting the ill-named Goode:

A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Quran.

I’d be willing to bet that he made up that story just for the folks back home. Why would a “Muslim student” be wandering around the offices of a Virginia Representative from the Appalachian foothills and what would prompt anyone in this country to ask a Representative who was displaying biblical posters why he had no Muslim posters (unless the person asked about posters displaying Buddhist, Hindu, and other beliefs, as well)?

So he appears to be someone pimping his hatred for fellow citizens while simultaneously inventing tales to appeal to the worst of his constituents.

[BrainGlutton]

@tomndebb

From John Mace’s link, quoting the ill-named Goode:I’d be willing to bet that he made up that story just for the folks back home. Why would a “Muslim student” be wandering around the offices of a Virginia Representative from the Appalachian foothills and what would prompt anyone in this country to ask a Representative who was displaying biblical posters why he had no Muslim posters (unless the person asked about posters displaying Buddhist, Hindu, and other beliefs, as well)?

So he appears to be someone pimping his hatred for fellow citizens while simultaneously inventing tales to appeal to the worst of his constituents.

Senators don’t do that?

[tomndebb]

@BrainGlutton

Senators don’t do that?

I was more extending a comment on my disgust for the person than actually promoting John Mace’s (I suspect facetious) comment about eliminating the House.