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.

[LexBaird]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

[little jeremiah]

Go back to Senators being picked by State Legislatures.

[generally]

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!

[Celerity]

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 ?

[ealgeone]

Repealing the 17th is the answer.

Problem solved.

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

[hanamizu]

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.

[BenLurkin]

Yup.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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

[fieldmarshaldj]

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

[qaz123]

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.

[jonose]

>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

[DoughtyOne]

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...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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.

[MCF]

“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.

[17th Miss Regt]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

[Arrian]

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!!!

[Political Junkie Too]

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

[dp0622]

This is horrible. I had no idea.

Few do.

Thanks for the mini class.

What a mess.