Ravenman, we’ve talked about this already. Call it a check, a speedbump, a graveyard – whatever. The point is that if you really want an institution to check the popularly elected House and the President, then there’s nothing about the Senate that uniquely qualifies it for that role. You could have the President appoint Senators for life, you could have a House of Lords – if you want to stifle the will of the people, you have any number of options. But in fact, we already have a body that “is afforded the opportunity to debate, and at times reject” executive bills. It’s called the House of Representatives.
Secondly, what’s the basis for your declaration that having such a check is in any way positive? Popularly elected legislators pass laws, and somehow this upsets you – you want a check (in addition to the Supreme Court and a Presidential veto) lest the people actually get what they vote for. All I hear is superstition, Ravenman, the circular reasoning of the uncritical patriot who claims that “if it’s in the Constitution then it must be necessary and good, therefore it’s in the Constitution.” As far as I can tell, the only meaningful defense of the Senate comes from the disproportional power it gives to small states, which I have criticized in above posts. Since you’ve abandoned that angle, I hope we won’t see it come up again.
What’s strange is the persistent, unsupported claim that seems to keep popping up: that the Senate is somehow able to debate and deliberate over laws in ways that a proportional body cannot. Ravenman don’t be just another poster who announces this nugget of wisdom to us without providing either a shred of reasoning or evidence to convince us.
jklann I like your argument for separating the branches along party lines. We know the founders never considered checks and balances in the context of a two-party system, but it’s worth thinking about. Personally, I feel that if our constitution had a proportionally elected President and a proportional House, then it wouldn’t matter what party controlled which branch. Parties and politicians would be that much more accountable for good and bad policy, as it should be. So what’s the downside?
Brain,
Thanks for the thread. I think this is a great topic for debate even though I do not agree with a position that would eliminate the Senate. Furthermore, kudos to you (and the other posters) for presenting a case with such civility.
Unfortunately (not really), I’m preparing to leave for the Summer to the mts. of Colorado. I hope to contribute at least one more post, but it looks unlikely. In case I don’t, thanks again, and I look forward to seeing how this thread ends up in August.
Cheers everyone. … and next time you’re down this way, remember to flash yer boobs.
If you read your Constitution a bit more carefully, you will find that the structure of the Senate is the only currently active part of the Constitution that cannot be ammended (the only other such clause being the slave trade clause, which was time limited and is now defunct).
An amendment to change the structure of the Senate would have to be ratified by all 50 states in order to become law of the land. I doubt Vermont and Rhode Island are going to go along.
There is one other alternative – an entirely new Constitution. This would, again, have to be ratified by every state which wanted to become a part of the new government.
Au contraire, there is something about the Senate that “uniquely qualifies it” for serving as a check to both the Executive Branch and to the House. It’s the filibuster. It’s that debate can only be cut off with the concurrance of 3/5ths of the senators. It’s that the chamber functions primarily through the use of unanimous consent agreements, so that one senator has the power to stop legislation dead in its tracks. Is that specific enough for you? Would you like some more nuggets of wisdom about how the Senate operates in a much different manner than virtually any other legislative body in the world?
All this means that the Senate is the most effective check against the tyranny of the majority. Yes, the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional laws, but that power may only be exercised after someone has already been injured by an unfair law – that is, the damage is already done.
The Senate, because it is such a difficult body to push legislation through, is the embodiment of a institution poised to issue pre-emptive strikes on controversial legislation.
Au contraire, there are things about the Senate that “uniquely qualifies it” for serving as a check to both the Executive Branch and to the House. If you really believe that the Senate functions the same as any other legislative body, I would be happy to suggest some civics textbooks, or better yet, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
The Senate is different because of its rules. It is the filibuster. It’s that debate can only be cut off with the concurrance of 3/5ths of the senators. It’s that the chamber functions primarily through the use of unanimous consent agreements, so that one senator has the power to stop legislation dead in its tracks. It is that senators serve for terms of six years, giving them a much freer hand to make politically unpopular decisions without having to worry about the next election being just around the corner. Is that specific enough for you? Would you like some more nuggets of wisdom about how the Senate operates in a much different manner than virtually any other legislative body in the world?
All this means that the Senate is the most effective check against the tyranny of the majority. Yes, the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional laws, but that power may only be exercised after someone has already been injured by an unfair law – that is, the damage is already done.
The Senate, because it is such a difficult body to push legislation through, is the embodiment of a institution poised to issue pre-emptive strikes on controversial legislation.
I don’t want to have a government that would allow party politics be the sole deciding factor in whether legislation is enacted. I don’t want to invest in Bush and DeLay the ability to push through bills that would garner only 50% plus one of the votes in the House. I can say the same for investing the same sort of power in Carter and O’Neill, Clinton and Foley, or any other president and Speaker who happen to be of the same party. Because of how the Senate operates, because of its rules, because of how it is constructed, it gives the country more assurance that the tyranny of the majority is tempered by the need for consensus.
As now consituted, it is simply a big House of Representitives.
I propose to return to selection of Senators by the State Legislatures. This would put Senators as the only legislators not beholding to “Special Intersest Groups” (However you care to define that term.)
They would not stand for election and could therefore be more deliberative in their decisons. They would be further removed from the passion of day-to-day politics.
To increase this effect, I would propose a new rule. No record would be kept of which Senator voted which way on an issue. If you an’t tell which side of an issue he is on, you cannot really pressure him.
I decided to revive this thread because there’s a big cover story in this month’s (May 2004) Harper’s Magazine: “What Democracy? The case for abolishing the United States Senate,” by Richard N. Rosenfeld. I’d post a link to it but the Harper’s website apparently carries nothing from the current issue.