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: Rurudyne

Perfect summary of the problem.


41 posted on 08/30/2016 8:47:48 PM PDT by Ken H (Best election ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

How do you fix this?

Trump will end up being a great president but the next one who is bad will have this same unlimited power, I assume.


42 posted on 08/30/2016 8:47:59 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 19 | View Replies]

To: DaBeerfreak

I suggest three changes: (1) like you, repeal the 17th Amendment, (2) Eliminate the need for 2nd Senator from each state...just go with one, and (3) eliminate any connection of the Senate to the budget.

The only basic functions that I think the Senate ought to be covering: approving cabinet officers for the President, voting up or down on treaties, approving court appointees, and impeachment situations.

If we did these....then you wouldn’t have the whole Senate behaving like lobbyist-controlled nutcases.


43 posted on 08/30/2016 8:48:14 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
FReeper OneWingedShark had a booklet of amendments, one of which was a Senate Reform amendment which I think addresses those problems:
Section I
The seventeenth amendment is hereby repealed.

Section II
The several states may provide by law the means by which their senators may be removed or replaced.

Section III
No person shall be a senator for more than two consecutive terms.

Section IV
All Senators shall be paid by their respective states according to such wages as that State may set; they shall receive no remuneration from the federal government.


44 posted on 08/30/2016 8:50:03 PM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

“... no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”


No, to my un lawyerly eye, Art. V makes this off-limits. But then I think that “...shall not be infringed” means what it says, so what do I know.


45 posted on 08/30/2016 8:54:02 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Actually, it worked fine.

All Senators are now are what members of the House are: only they face election less frequently, often exhibit greater job security being even more removed from those who vote for them, and are even MORE useless as a direct result.

The problems encountered with the first system are nothing compared to enduring these undisciplined, spendthrift loons we endure today BECAUSE the States are no longer the actual Partys represented as they ought to be.


46 posted on 08/30/2016 8:54:47 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Edward.Fish

You can implement anything you wish, but it’s not going to change the quality or the agenda of those elected. From Democrat states, you’ll have unencumbered Stalinists looting the treasury. From Republican states, you’ll have unencumbered RINO statists looting the treasury. You won’t get any Conservative Senators except by accident, and they’ll be swiftly removed.


47 posted on 08/30/2016 8:54:49 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

Post #37 & #47.


48 posted on 08/30/2016 8:55:39 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Of course they were under no legal obligation to step down before the end of their six year term, why would they? it’s in the Constitution. Have you ever heard of a Senator step down now after their state switches to another party? The Senate was there to represent the states, it now only represents political parties and the corruption is now easier.


49 posted on 08/30/2016 8:56:48 PM PDT by MCF (If my home can't be my Castle, then it will be my Alamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Arrian

Actually, there was one income tax — 3 percent, if I remember correctly - imposed during the Civil War. This one was repealed sometime afterward. Then another income tax was imposed later on in the 19th Century. This one was overturned by the Supreme Court, because the tax was considered a capitation on some forms of income (not allowed without apportionment) and an excise on other forms of income (allowed). The 16th Amendment allowed all forms of income to be taxed without apportionment.


50 posted on 08/30/2016 8:57:41 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 38 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

As I recall, a 1912 bribery scandal from Illinois — where else? — pushed the Amendment over the finish line for ratification.


51 posted on 08/30/2016 8:59:23 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 37 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Really, do you think “Statesmen” are produced by this present system?

Rather, the Senate HAD Statesmen and subsequent to the 17th the traditions that encouraged them steadily eroded till we have this lot. They get worse, not better.

To paraphrase: With Statesmen like these who needs useless knaves and fools?


52 posted on 08/30/2016 9:00:24 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

To the last comments I will add that the “elitist parasites” you’d get have their job only because they keep the “elitist parasites” in the State legislatures happy.

You know, people whose job prospects aren’t nearly so secure because they aren’t individually so removed from most of their electorate as a US Senator presently is?

The old saying about fooling people applies: it is one thing to fool a large body of strangers (statewide no less) about who you really are but another entirely to fool your peer, the people who actually know you.


53 posted on 08/30/2016 9:04:32 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Just when we thought this election cycle couldn’t get any more bizarre....


54 posted on 08/30/2016 9:05:12 PM PDT by luvie (I love the troops. That is all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Funny they’ve only noticed just now, when Obama is leaving, and its possible that trump could become president, that the executive branch can abuse its power through imperial edicts, er, I mean “executive actions”

How conveeeeenient.


55 posted on 08/30/2016 9:06:01 PM PDT by Cubs Fan (The goal of political correctness is not equality. It is minority supremacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
After the Bill Of Rights, almost every time the constitution has been altered or reinterpreted the unforeseen consequences outweigh any supposed good.

I don't know about that.

Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.



56 posted on 08/30/2016 9:07:31 PM PDT by rdb3 (You know, I've yet to see a hearse with a U-Hall trailer hitched to it. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued
>> 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. <<

It's the same reason why the anti-17thers can't explain why all those wonderful state-legislature appointed U.S. Senators enacted the 16th amendment (federal income tax) back in 1913, BEFORE popularly elected Senators, if they were supposedly serving "state interests" back then and wouldn't DREAM of imposing some horrible federal mandate on the states.

The answer, of course, is that these state legislatures just aren't the "vision of the founding fathers" utopia that Mark Levin claims they are. Many are as bad or WORSE than the federal government. Hence, the reason the 17th amendment was created in the first place.

57 posted on 08/30/2016 9:08:17 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I think you’re referring to William Lorimer. Though this sort of thing was rampant by then.


58 posted on 08/30/2016 9:09:16 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

I think statesmen CAN be produced by the current system, but certainly not by returning to the prior system with its rampant corruption. The desire to have Henry Clays, John C. Calhouns and Daniel Websters won’t make it so. I’d rather modify who CAN vote. Universal suffrage is too close to direct democracy. Voting should be a privilege, not a right, and should fall on those with skin in the game, not parasites bleeding the nation dry.


59 posted on 08/30/2016 9:13:25 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne; Impy; fieldmarshaldj
>> Really, do you think “Statesmen” are produced by this present system? <<

Occasionally. The legendary "Mr. Republican" Bob Taft became Senator under the current system of direct elections, for example. (his portrait hangs on the Senate wall along side such greats as Daniel Webster) He was a fantastic leader in the 40s and 50s. I wish he had become President instead of Ike.

>> Rather, the Senate HAD Statesmen and subsequent to the 17th the traditions that encouraged them steadily eroded till we have this lot. They get worse, not better. <<

Most of the "statesmen" produced by the old system were around prior to the civil war. The Senators it produced during the Woodrow Wilson era (immediately prior to the ratification of the 17th) were a disgraceful lot, and even more corrupt and sleazy than the current crop of U.S. Senators. Becoming U.S. Senator through bribes and backroom deals was the norm in the early 20th century.

60 posted on 08/30/2016 9:14:57 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | 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