Abolish the Senate. It’s the only way to rein in modern presidents.

The Washington Post ^ | August 30, 2016 | John Bicknell

[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.

[Clean_Sweep]

You don’t know who would be elected. Shuster was a democrat. They would be better than what we have.

[fieldmarshaldj]

The sad part is, you and I probably agree on 95% or more of the issues, but when it comes to the 17th, you go into a full-blown meltdown.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You didn’t even read my post.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Sure I do. Shuster is a RINO looter. Republican legs like PA would elect Shusters and Specters.

[Edward.Fish]

You nailed it. But try taking that one away.

Hmm… Visit college campuses and petition to end women's suffrage, because women need to be free of suffering. (And we can cite all the damage done by trying to replace husbands w/ government and all the other terrible stuff that women have helped push through.)

[Arthur McGowan]

I’ll take anything I can get.

After today’s speech—after a week of talk about Trump’s going squishy on immigration—I have greater confidence that he will go for FUNDAMENTAL reforms, UNLIKE REAGAN. Reagan managed our fiat money beautifully. Reagan reformed the income tax beautifully.

I am hoping Trump will get rid of fiat money. Repeal the 16th Amendment. Etc.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It’s really pathetic. The Republicans’ utter failure to do or roll back virtually ANYTHING leftist since they reacquired the Presidency in the post-FDR/Truman era beginning with Eisenhower and clear up to this useless, weakling and statist Congress of today has made it so that if Trump were to accomplish something at all, it instantly makes him the best and most effective President since the Harding/Coolidge era. If these asshats had done their job in the first place (Ike should’ve rolled back everything to 1928 from day #1, just like Trump should roll things back to 1988 on day #1), we’d never have gotten in such a disastrous situation.

[BillyBoy]

>> I’m sure Trump would be against having elections rigged by a small group of politicians. <<

More importantly, the frequently cited "best Presidents of the 20th century" on this very thread -- Reagan and Coolidge, would have been appalled by the idea. Certainly for the practical reason that would have ensured a bunch of southern states sent nothing but socialist RATs to Washington to oppose their administrations, but also because the basic principle of Conservatism 101 is that the individual can make the best decisions over their own lives, and government shouldn't do things for people that they can do for themselves. Repealing the 17th sends the exact opposite message and says we need big government instead of individuals in charge of that decision, and a middle man bureaucrat to pick our federal officials for us.

The anti-17thers will claim the opposite and insist that "progressive" (actually REGRESSIVE) RATS love that the Senate is chosen by popular vote. The RATS actions say otherwise. For example, if President Obama REALLY felt that We the People make the best decision about who should be our Senator, he would have forcibly used the bully pulpit and pushed for a special election when Blago tried to take bribes to fill his Senate seat. Obama didn't because he was perfectly content to let his pals in the state legislature decide the fate of his Senate seat until the next election. The only reason the RATS like to scream about "democracy" a lot (while governing the OPPOSITE way) is that they (unlike the anti-17thers) can read the polls and realize that lofty words about empowering the people can get them votes, and that would be political suicide to make a public statement supporting their pals in state legislatures taking away people's vote for the U.S. Senate.

[MCF]

Thank you.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I don’t know why you’re thanking him. On this, he’s 100% wrong. He wouldn’t even answer post #138, which is the most damning indictment of why repeal wouldn’t benefit Conservatives.

[MCF]

One more time. The Senate was to represent the political power of the States, through their State Legislatures in the Federal Government. It was a check on the growth and power of the Federal Government and it worked for over 120 years. Now the Senate represents political parties which want to grow the power of the Federal Government, which you seem to favor and I oppose. Just look at how the size and scope of the Federal Government has grown over the last 104 and how much the States power has been diminished.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"One more time. The Senate was to represent the political power of the States, through their State Legislatures in the Federal Government."

Was MEANT to.

"It was a check on the growth and power of the Federal Government and it worked for over 120 years."

Wrong. It ceased to be that early in the 19th century and with the Civil War, any remnants of that completely collapsed. It became a corrupt body of wealthy citizens representing various special interests.

"Now the Senate represents political parties which want to grow the power of the Federal Government, which you seem to favor and I oppose."

I challenge you to find any post or article where I favor strengthening the ultra-obscene and anti-Constitutional Federal Government of the present. If you think giving back the power to choose Senators to corrupt and statist state legislatures will cease to represent the parties, you're sadly mistaken. Your side is the one preaching EMPOWERING politicians, not disempowering them. You'll also cease to give Republicans a chance to be elected in states with hyper-Dem legislatures and at the same time having any sort of Conservatives elected from GOP states. In other words, Dem legs will elect the most radical of hard-core leftists and GOP ones will elect big government fiscally reckless types, both of which will be united in their quest to loot the bankrupt treasury.

"Just look at how the size and scope of the Federal Government has grown over the last 104 and how much the States power has been diminished."

It's been growing since Day #1, and States power went out the window with the Civil War. The last time it was effectively cut in size, however briefly, was under 2 Conservative Presidents, Harding and Coolidge, and that was AFTER the 17th was ratified. The post-17th Senate is not to blame for all of our ills. There were too many problems before and too many big government happy politicians in BOTH parties since the 19th century leading us to the situation we find ourselves in now.

[Impy]

The people of the states are the states, they don’t need a bunch of scumbag politicians (who also “represent political parties” btw) to act as a middleman and have shadowy backroom deals determine who is elected to the Senate.

It would be a rigged DISASTER. You would get less conservative Senators, period. Dems and RINOs would team up RINOs in Republican state. A couple Lisa Murkowski’s in Texas sound good to you?

This stupid idea is politically untenable and is not gonna be seriously on the table EVER let alone actually enacted so you’re wasting your time hoping for it. This “debate” does not exist outside of the Internet.

[Impy]

My lib state legislators can have MY RIGHT to vote for the Senate candidate of my choice over my dead body.

Such nonsense would never fly with voters on the right or left.

[BillyBoy]

I was arguing with some Constitution Party member a couple months back who also used the ridiculous argument that the 17th amendment gave control of the Senate to "the two party duopoly". Again, the opposite is true. Since the popular election of Senators, its possible for third party candidates and independents to occasionally win Senate seats (James Buckley, Bernie Sanders, etc.). If the 17th were repealed, the state legislatures would send nothing but party hacks to the U.S. Senate. Good luck getting a 100% R & D state house to appoint an Independent from the private sector who doesn't kiss their butts and donate huge $$$ to their re-election funds.

The same can be said for the silly argument that the 17th amendment gave "urban areas" complete control over the U.S. Senate seats. I refuted that one easily on this thread by using the example of the Illinois General Assembly, which is gerrymandered so that ONLY ONE county (Crook, and more specifically, Chicago) has any input in what "the state" as a whole decides to do. Mike Madigan of Chicago decides what the state legislature will enact, and then his minions rubber stamp it. The popularly elected Senators, on the other hand, have to win over the entire state. Even scum like Dick Durbin won his Senate seat over Al Salvi because he fooled some downstate voters into supporting him.

It's truly bizarre how these 17th amendment repeal advocates live in a world where the exact OPPOSITE of reality occurs.

Notice none of the valid points that Fieldmarshaldj & I made have been logically refuted by any these bozos. Their "response" is always to switch to ad hominem attacks and sneer "Oh yeah, well that just PROVES yer a PROGRESSIVE who HATES the constitution and the founding fathers!! I bet you LOVE Obama, dont ya?! You outta be ZOTTED for supporting the 17th amendment, LOSER!!!!"