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).

[Reily]

Another specious argument used was that the states were too slow in filling Senate vacancies.

[Jacquerie]

Pre-Civil War state legislatures used varied procedures to elect their senators. Thanks to party divisions they occasionally failed to promptly replace outgoing senators. Yes, bloc-voting by political parties is not a recent development. In some, each house voted separately. In most, the legislatures met jointly and sometimes sent men who won a plurality rather than a majority of votes. To alleviate these difficulties, congress standardized senatorial elections in 1866.

Under its Article I § 4 authority to prescribe “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives,” the statute required the two houses of each legislature to meet in joint session on a specified day and to meet every day thereafter until they elected a senator. Congress demanded a majority vote; it would not seat those who won a plurality.6

Thanks in large part to the 1866 law, legislative deadlocks soared. The procedure set forth by congress consumed a great deal of legislative time in short (40 – 60 day) legislative sessions better spent on pressing state matters and ironically served to rally direct election adherents. Between 1885 and 1913, this process left a total of fifteen empty senate seats.7

A Senate of the States - Part I of III.

[Jacquerie]

<>widespread understanding of, and the reality of, corruption in the Senate.<>

Prior to 1866, the senate investigated only one case of suspected bribery in the election of a senator. However, between 1866 and 1912, the senate investigated fourteen similar allegations.8

As for bribing sitting senators, the senate investigated ten cases of alleged bribery or corruption between 1857 and 1900. In only three cases did a senate committee conclude that the charges had merit.9

In time, the “assumption of corruption” consumed early 20th century progressives as thoroughly as “assumption of Russian collusion” consumed democrats during the first Trump administration. Some things never change.

A Senate of the States - The 17th Amendment Part I of III.

[Reily]

Thanks !
Interesting!

[Bryan24]

Senators appointed by State legislatures. 2 terms, max

House members represent 50,000 people. 3 terms max.

[Jacquerie]

I’ve never understood why the border states years ago did not ask for assistance from other states to deal with invasion.

[Reily]

You would end up with an utterly unworkable House.
US population is some 340 million according to Wikipedia
That would be like roughly 6800 seats
It would look like that Star Wars legislature.

UK Parliament size 650 seats
Russian Duma Size 450 seats
French Assembly size 577 seats
German Bundestag size 733 seats

The current size is fine - 435 + 100 senators = 535.
So, it’s not out of alignment with the above numbers.
Making it bigger won’t improve the quality of the people sitting in it. You must love bureaucratic rule because that’s what effectively you would end up with!

[Political Junkie Too]

Because Jan Brewer tried to pass AB 1070 in Arizona that mirrored federal laws and Obama took her to court to get it stopped.

The judge effectively ruled that states would be usurping the Attorney General's power to prioritize resources elsewhere if the states made the AG have to deal with their apprehended illegal border crossers.

In other words, it was unconstitutional for states to make the federal government follow the law.

-PJ

[Spktyr]

They already do that *now* and a new electee will want to clean house anyway. Nor will the new electee have existing obligations.

[Chewbarkah]

“If the people of are happy with legislative corruption and does nothing about it, it their problem.”

I see this more as “their fault but our problem”.

[desertfreedom765]

I don’t know about a 6k house, but they could easily triple the number of congressmen with modern technology. They wouldn’t even need to leave their districts.

The 17th was a huge mistake, concentrated power in DC. Most senators barely live in their own states.

[Reily]

Partially true - It’s their state. I can’t tell them who to put in their legislature!

[cowboyusa]

Allow the continuation of popular voting for Senate, but add an Amendment for recall of Senators by referendum of the States voters.

[Twotone]

Not knowing the background of who you vote for...

_____

And just the fact that people put themselves forward to “serve.” Is it service or is there another motivation? A legislature, considering someone to serve, is likely to select a more meritorious person than someone who just thinks THEY are the right one.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The American citizen is the only term limiter we need."

We've tried it....it has not worked out.

[Bryan24]

1 person cannot accurately reflect the will of 685,000 (somewhere in that neighborhood) people.

If you want the House of Representatives to accurately reflect the will of the people, the ratio has to come down dramatically.

[webheart]

I am amused by the widespread use of the term Congress critters. Critters are cute little animals sometimes entertaining and sometimes amusing. Congressional representatives are not cute. They shouldn’t be called critters.

[Nifster]

You presume that red means conservative. It does not

[GOPJ]

Good point...

[Vaduz]

A legislature, considering someone to serve, is likely to select a more meritorious person.

More tend to go the good old boy club member route more of them tend to select a don’t tell member.

Note the democrats learn hard on the ones will state facts than lies.