Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abolish the Senate. It’s the only way to rein in modern presidents.
The Washington Post ^ | August 30, 2016 | John Bicknell

Posted on 08/30/2016 7:37:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

With the prospect of a President Donald Trump or a President Hillary Clinton on the horizon, the growing trend toward the executive acting without the consent of Congress is troubling to all political stripes. Both parties claim to worry about a strong presidency, at least if the other party is in the White House.

That trend has been exacerbated by President Obama, but it certainly didn’t start with him. With the exception of Calvin Coolidge, every president of the 20th and 21st centuries contributed to the problem.

Many proposals to address the imperial presidency have been floated over the decades. Some have even been implemented. None has stemmed the tide.

To rebalance the separation of powers, it is necessary to make Congress stronger. The best way to do that? Abolish the Senate.

The original constitutional purpose of the Senate — to represent the states, not the people who live in them — has long since been abandoned. With the 17th Amendment’s requirement that senators be popularly elected, there is no chance that it will ever be recovered.

Likewise, the original political purpose of the Senate — to act as a “cooling saucer” for the hot passions of the more-democratic House — has fallen victim to the evolving nature of American governance. The Senate has become more like the House, partly because more House members are being elected to the Senate, and also because the Senate’s real institutionalists — such as West Virginia Democrat Robert C. Byrd and Mississippi Republican Trent Lott — are no longer around.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 17thamendment; elections; executivepower; house; people; presidency; senate; states
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-155 next last
To: dp0622
No jargon, it's fact. The idea was to balance the regional needs for representation with popular representation, so the Senate represented the interests of the States. The House represented the interests of the population.

Slowly, the power of the States as an equal partner in the Federal system has been eroded. The 16th A. gave the Feds the power to directly tax the people, and so gave them unlimited funding. The 17th A. converted the Senate into another House, stripping the States of direct representation. The 14th A. has been employed to make the 10th A. essentially meaningless. The Wickard v. Fillmore decision made the interstate commerce clause meaningless and gave the Feds jurisdiction over all trade.

The last remnant of power equalizing the States is the Electoral College, and it is under assault. States have basically become local administrative districts of the Federal government, with barely any local sovereignty left.

21 posted on 08/30/2016 8:00:20 PM PDT by LexBaird (Tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaBeerfreak

You’re not going to get statesmen that way. You’ll just have more elitist parasites choosing elitist parasites and bypassing the only way to stop that: the people.


22 posted on 08/30/2016 8:01:05 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Go back to Senators being picked by State Legislatures.


23 posted on 08/30/2016 8:03:33 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Half the truth is often a great lie. B. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The reason the WaComPost is concerned about this now is because they are worried that Trump will be elected. As long as the President is a Democrat, they see no need to rein them in.

Wasn’t it just a while back when the Democrats and the media, led by 0vomit, were saying that things would work better if he could just be a dictator? My, what short memories those Democrats have!


24 posted on 08/30/2016 8:07:33 PM PDT by generally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Did the Washington Post just give Calvin Coolidge credit for something ?

And not “for starting the depression” ?

Wow. Did the editor, named Screwtape, take the day off ?


25 posted on 08/30/2016 8:08:19 PM PDT by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Repealing the 17th is the answer.

Problem solved.

While doing so it should be noted that liberals wanted the 17th.

26 posted on 08/30/2016 8:10:33 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sargon

The 17th could be repealed, but practically speaking it would have to be done by the states calling for a convention, since I doubt that 2/3s of the Senate would vote for it. Why the states back in 1913 didn’t or couldn’t realize that the 17th amendment was stripping their power in the federal government, I can’t explain.


27 posted on 08/30/2016 8:12:05 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Yup.


28 posted on 08/30/2016 8:21:34 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Didn’t work. That’s why the 17th was enacted.


29 posted on 08/30/2016 8:22:15 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Impy; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy

Yoohoo. The orgy of anti-17thers needs some truth laid on it.


30 posted on 08/30/2016 8:23:23 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Let the Senators come from the State legislatures, like they were intended to do.
If you think about it, there are at least 30 solid RED states, if not more and they tend to be pretty Conservative at that. Thats at least 60+ Republicans in the Senate. Throw in a couple from the PURPLE states where the legislatures will each get a pick and I think it’d be pretty close to veto proof.

But let’s not worry about that. It’s more fun and profitable to keep doing what they’ve been doing. It’s the definition of insanity.


31 posted on 08/30/2016 8:23:47 PM PDT by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

>proposing that the House can impeach the president on a >simple majority vote?
I’d settle for a vote of no confidence and a schedule for new election in 90 days


32 posted on 08/30/2016 8:26:51 PM PDT by jonose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If you can't destroy the nation one way, look for a new way...

Not buying it!


Free Republic, the Home of the Eternal FReeper, Conservatism's Finest  (timely thoughts on the FReeper dynamic and Free Republic)

Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION
08/29/2016: LINK  LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.
 Read his thoughts on Colin Kaepernick sitting down, use right link.
In this political cartoon, Ramirez presents, "...Happy Independence Day..."

Please join the monthlies, an automated way to help support Free Republic.

If you are not opting to join the automated monthly support program, please consider joining the One One Done project.  
LINK



FReepers, 89.22% of the Third Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!

...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

33 posted on 08/30/2016 8:28:32 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (He wins & we do, our nation does, the world does. It's morning in America again. You are living it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Actually, before 1913, you could have income tax without apportionment on limited types of incomes. The 16th Amendment broadened the scope of incomes — to all forms — to which this tax could be applied without apportionment.

If we really want to meaningfully kill the federal income tax, we could not simply repeal the 16th Amendment and expect income taxes to go away. They would just be more limited.


34 posted on 08/30/2016 8:29:46 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Cuckservative: a "conservative" willing to raise another country's ideology in his own country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“Didn’t work. That’s why the 17th was enacted.”
No, it did work, that is why the Progressives of the era wanted it changed.


35 posted on 08/30/2016 8:30:01 PM PDT by MCF (If my home can't be my Castle, then it will be my Alamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu
Abolishing the Senate would require more than a mere amendment.

One can amend Article V to allow states to be so deprived and then amend Article I as appropriate to abolish the Senate. An idiotic idea, but possible without requiring a new constitution.

36 posted on 08/30/2016 8:33:36 PM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MCF

Wrong. It never worked as the Founders’ intended. As soon as Senators discovered early on in the 19th century that they had no LEGAL obligation to step down when the opposition party would win the legislature during their term, it ceased to work. It became a thoroughgoing joke by the end of the 19th century and the public demanded they bypass corrupt legislators and elect the Senators directly. It WAS going to be enacted and the state legislatures had to approve it or face defeat at the polls and replacement by those who would.


37 posted on 08/30/2016 8:36:08 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What in tarnation are you talking about?????
The Federal Government was financed by Tariffs (Import Duties)) from its inception, till the Income Tax in 1913!!!


38 posted on 08/30/2016 8:44:16 PM PDT by Arrian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In the short term, just get rid of Reid and McConnell. Their sell-by dates have long ago expired.

We need new blood, new thinking, and to throw out the old grudges and animosities.

-PJ

39 posted on 08/30/2016 8:45:48 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.From Foxnews, May 31,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

This is horrible. I had no idea.

Few do.

Thanks for the mini class.

What a mess.


40 posted on 08/30/2016 8:46:15 PM PDT by dp0622 (The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson