The Decline and Fall of the US Senate

American Thinker ^ | January 25, 2025 | Ian MacConnell

[Twotone]

The time I’ve spent watching Democrat senators during the ongoing confirmation hearings for President Trump’s nominees has been beyond tiresome.

snip

So should we have term limits in the Senate? The Senate is clearly a mess, and it seems pretty much dysfunctional. But how did we arrive at this point? Was it caused by a defect in the Constitution? Not at all. The Founders intended that senators be appointed by their respective state legislatures. It was never intended that senators be politicians, elected by the voters. They weren’t until 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified. How has that change been harmful?

The House still operates in much the way it was expected to. The Founding Fathers anticipated that representatives would come from among the regular people, serving just two-year terms, probably affected by the prevailing tides of public passion, likely engaging in factious political conduct because of constant electioneering. The House would probably even produce some ill considered legislation on occasion.

The original purpose of the Senate was to create governmental stability in a way that a body like the House could not. The Founders thought it was important for the federal government to display a stable “national character” in the eyes of the world (Federalist 63, paragraph 1). Senators were originally chosen by, and accountable to, their state legislatures rather than elected by the people of the state. They had a six-year term rather than just two years to enhance that stability.

It was assumed that senators would be accomplished people, with proven talent and excellent character. They would represent the interests of their states in the federal government but would also understand and adhere to America’s founding principles (Federalist 64, paragraph 4).

[Spktyr]

Max three terms as a rep, two terms as a senator, a ban from becoming a lobbyist for as long as you were in office.

[Frank Drebin]

Repeal the 17th amendment and next get rid of the Apportionment Act. Do what the Founders laid out. I don’t care if the House has 6,000 members or more...it was the original intent. Proper representation for the people in the House, and the Senate was for the states.

[Frank Drebin]

And we have term limits. It's called voting. Artificial limitations invite apathy. We cannot afford to be lazy. If a politician needs to be removed then campaign against them or recall them, remove those who are failing at the job they were elected to do.

The American citizen is the only term limiter we need.

[exnavy]

You nailed it, sooner than later.

[bigbob]

Ironic that the “fall of the US Senate” is written by a guy named MacConnell...

[DIRTYSECRET]

Trump might get voter ID in Calif but getting rid of the 17th amendment would be a bridge too far. Too many reasons the amendment got passed in the first place. Same with the income tax and term limits.

Income tax-a flat 1% would be the way to deal with it as democrats would be too scared to raise it. Tariffs and eliminating departments would do more than make up the difference. It would get everybody on board especially if we drill.

A 10 year plan to get rid of those 2-3 amendments would be doable.

[gibsonguy]

Repeal the 17th amendment “

I doubt it is possible to repeal or add an amendment at this point. The country is just to polarized.

[Carry_Okie]

The real problem with the Senate is the wildly disproportionate distribution in the sizes of the respective States intended to concentrate power in the Northeast.

[dvan]

And we have term limits. It's called voting. Artificial limitations invite apathy. We cannot afford to be lazy. If a politician needs to be removed then campaign against them or recall them, remove those who are failing at the job they were elected to do. The American citizen is the only term limiter we need.

That should work but hasn't. They manage to buy off the voters.

[Frank Drebin]

It worked on November 5th.

We are always going to be fighting corruption in politics. We must back strong, good men for office and then back them up as they work to uphold our republican form of government. No, it isn't easy and can be damned frustrating at times, but the public can be moved to proper action. It is a matter of education and motivation.

[Lurker]

Both the 16th and the 17th should be repealed.

Then we take a long hard look at the 19th.

L

[sauropod]

Yeah, I noticed that.

[Alberta's Child]

I’m not sure exactly what problem the author is looking to solve here. Term limits won’t fix corruption. With term limits in place, senators will simply accelerate their corruption so they get what they want in 6-12 years instead of 25+.

[Fledermaus]

The founders didn’t see it that way for Senators.

[Spktyr]

I believe that history has proven that this isn’t so. A politician that keeps bringing pork back to their district keeps getting re-elected.

Additionally, the Founders never envisioned anyone wanting to become a professional national politician (blame William Carrier for that one) and further they did not foresee today’s greatly expanded lifespans. Death was the original term limiter in the US, as in 1789 the average American male lifespan was only 34.5 years. If you eliminated infant and early child mortality, you still only had an average lifespan of 57 years. This didn’t leave people a lot of time to ossify into office.

[Spktyr]

It will likely reduce corruption somewhat, but what it will absolutely do is massively reduce the number of elected representatives that are massively out of touch with the concerns of the modern American constituent. Remember, we have people in the Senate today that literally do not know how to use a computer because they have ‘people’ to do that for them and have since before the turn of the millennium.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

As far as I see it, the real problem is the power of the political parties, just as George Washington warned us more than 200 years ago.

Even if we did get rid of the 17th Amendment, which you can see by my login name, the Senators would still come from the party. And while they might not be completely loyal to the party above their state citizens, it would be hard to separate them.

Trump has shown that we have problems in both parties and has also shown he can appeal to people who don't care about political parties.

If every politician had to run as an independent we would avoid a lot of these confirmation and legislative battles.

[Twotone]

A repeal of the 17th would simply return an appropriate balance that has been lost, as the senate was supposed to represent the states. If we ever have an Article V Convention, I hope that’s on the table.

The other thing we need to do is limit campaign contributions to being from people within the district the position represents. We really need to stop the Super PACs that come in to swing congressional or senate seats. If they’re supposed to represent US, they should only receive local donations.

[Da Coyote]

Three things that can fix our joke of a senate (same thing for the House of liberal idiots):
1: Term limits
2: Term limits
3: Term limits

Oh, and
4:Public death for the turtle, as a public example for slimy crooked POS.