What good is the U.S. Senate anyway?

[pecksniff]

It's supposed to be "the saucer into which the passions of the House are poured for cooling." But when has there ever been an instance in American history where a bill passed the House and died in the Senate and that was a good thing?

In general terms, a unicameral, or dromedary legislature, is better than a bicameral, or Bactrian legislature. Consider: Anything that makes legislation harder to enact, also makes legislation harder to repeal.

 

[pecksniff]

When looking at the ‘cooling’ idea, remember 2 things
1. The Senate is the antithesis of ‘democratic’
2. Until 1913, Senators were elected by state legislatures, not by general election. The Senate was made to protect the powerful from the masses.

Anything that makes the U.S. more democratic and less oligarchical/plutocratic is worth doing.

 

[siobhancan99]

The Senate is actually designed to protect small states from large states and states themselves from the reach of the federal government. It isn't to protect the powerful.

I mean lets be honest, protecting the powerful is basically the use to which all government is put. WITHIN that purpose, the Senate is supposed to do the above.

 

[pecksniff]

The Senate is actually designed to protect small states from large states and states themselves from the reach of the federal government.

Then, it has no value. There are no instances in American history of big states, as states, bullying small ones. (And, no, California having more votes than Montana in the HoR would not be such an instance.) And the House alone is every bit as competent to decide on all questions of federal-state power allocation not constitutionally determined.

Decentralization is rarely a good idea anyway. See Lind's Law: The further down you go in the federal-state-local hierarchy, the more incompetence, ignorance and corruption you will find.

 

[siobhancan99]

Then, it has no value. There are no instances in American history of big states, as states, bullying small ones. (And, no, California having more votes than Montana in the HoR would not be such an instance.) And the House alone is every bit as competent to decide on all questions of federal-state power allocation not constitutionally determined.

Decentralization is rarely a good idea anyway. See Lind's Law: The further down you go in the federal-state-local hierarchy, the more incompetence, ignorance and corruption you will find.

Which would be a valid argument, if at any point in US history there had been no Senate. Sadly, as there has not been, we can't know whether its irrelevant or just really effective.

Also, who is Lind and why should we care about his law? People on the internet love that shit but at the end of the day its appeal to authority, and what even is the authority?

 

[KeithD]

Its major relevance is that there would have been no United States without an equal-power-for-every-state body as part of the deal. That's reality.

 

[pecksniff]

Which would be a valid argument, if at any point in US history there had been no Senate. Sadly, as there has not been, we can't know whether its irrelevant or just really effective.

Effective at what, other than thwarting the public will?

Also, who is Lind and why should we care about his law? People on the internet love that shit but at the end of the day its appeal to authority, and what even is the authority?

Michael Lind. He stated "Lind's Law" in an article in the 1990s that I can't find online, "A Horde of Lilliputian Governments," which is all about the incomprehensible mess of special-district governments at the local level (all the ones you see on your ballot or your property-tax bill and go "WTF?! What is a water-management district?!"). He said he based it on experience working in government at various levels.

 

[pecksniff]

Its major relevance is that there would have been no United States without an equal-power-for-every-state body as part of the deal. That's reality.

The political realities of 1787 need not apply now.

 

[KeithD]

The political realities of 1787 need not apply now.

Get real. The smaller states still wouldn't vote for anything less than equal status with every other state in a legislative body. You couldn't get the votes for it because of the current controlling structure. And that, in fact, is a 2022 political reality.

 

[siobhancan99]

Effective at what, other than thwarting the public will?

Michael Lind. He stated "Lind's Law" in an article in the 1990s that I can't find online, "A Horde of Lilliputian Governments," which is all about the incomprehensible mess of special-district governments at the local level (all the ones you see on your ballot or your property-tax bill and go "WTF?! What is a water-management district?!"). He said he based it on experience working in government at various levels.

Let me guess, when ONE party uses the filibuster and prevents a different party from getting its agenda through its "thwarting the public will" and when ANOTHER party does the same its "preserving democracy from fascists"

Right?

 

[pecksniff]

Let me guess, when ONE party uses the filibuster and prevents a different party from getting its agenda through its "thwarting the public will" and when ANOTHER party does the same its "preserving democracy from fascists"

Right?

No, it's thwarting the public will either way -- to the very doubtful and attenuated extent that the Senate, as distinct from the House, can even be said to represent the public will.

I have always consistently wanted the filibuster abolished, no matter which party controlled the Senate at the time.

But the filibuster is not the topic of this thread. The topic is more in the nature of the Senate rejecting bills the House passes. That should never happen, and it is never a good thing when it does happen, and I have yet to see any counterexample in this thread or anywhere else.

 

[The_Trouvere]

The Senate was added as a compromise between large states and small states. With the growing mobility of the U.S. population I do not think it is necessary any more.

There are a number of Constitutional changes I would like, perhaps even a new Constitution. Nevertheless, as long as the electorate is as polarized as it is I think it would be unwise to make changes now. I do not want a Second Constitutional Convention until there is a broad consensus about the kind of government we should have, and what it should be doing.

 

[KeithD]

Yeah, the filibuster is in no way congruent with the public will.

 

[pecksniff]

The Senate was added as a compromise between large states and small states. With the growing mobility of the U.S. population I do not think it is necessary any more.

There are a number of Constitutional changes I would like, perhaps even a new Constitution. Nevertheless, as long as the electorate is as polarized as it is I think it would be unwise to make changes now. I do not want a Second Constitutional Convention until there is a broad consensus about the kind of government we should have, and what it should be doing.

We can expect such consensus to emerge on a generational timescale -- i.e., as the GI and Silent generations die off, the Boomers move into retirement, and the GenX and Millennials and Zoomers take over. (I'm getting this categorization of generations from Strauss & Howe -- it makes a certain sense even if their general historical-determinist theory of cyclical generational cultures does not).

 

[KeithD]

The Senate was added as a compromise between large states and small states. With the growing mobility of the U.S. population I do not think it is necessary any more.

There are a number of Constitutional changes I would like, perhaps even a new Constitution. Nevertheless, as long as the electorate is as polarized as it is I think it would be unwise to make changes now. I do not want a Second Constitutional Convention until there is a broad consensus about the kind of government we should have, and what it should be doing.

And I repeat, it's the current power structure. The small states aren't going to give that up and you can't get it done unless the small states become willing to give up the existing leverage they have. That ship has sailed. Small states have the edge in the constitutional amendment process too.

 

[The_Trouvere]

We can expect such consensus to emerge on a generational timescale -- i.e., as the GI and Silent generations die off, the Boomers move into retirement, and the GenX and Millennials and Zoomers take over. (I'm getting this categorization of generations from Strauss & Howe -- it makes a certain sense even if their general historical-determinist theory of cyclical generational cultures does not).

I am a child of the 1960's, and continue to have some of the values and concerns I had then. Sometimes i wonder: What happened to the others? Did they go over to the Dark Side?

I am more of a child of the 1930's, although I did not live back then. I love President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Any way, I am going to bed now. Take care.

 

[pecksniff]

I am a child of the 1960's, and continue to have some of the values and concerns I had then. Sometimes i wonder: What happened to the others? Did they go over to the Dark Side?

I am more of a child of the 1930's, although I did not live back then. I love President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Bear in mind, most Baby Boomers spent the 1960s just working or studying, and had and still have rather conservative politics, even if they grooved on acid rock, etc. Only a (highly vocal and visible) minority got involved in political activism or the hippie counterculture. Later generations are in fact much more left-wing in outlook -- and they will provide the coming progressive consensus.

 

[Rightguide]

When looking at the ‘cooling’ idea, remember 2 things
1. The Senate is the antithesis of ‘democratic’
2. Until 1913, Senators were elected by state legislatures, not by general election. The Senate was made to protect the powerful from the masses.

The founders never intended a pure democracy. Study American history and start all over again.

 

[pecksniff]

The founders never intended a pure democracy.

That does not make it a bad idea.

That is, to the extent "pure democracy" is even possible in any community larger than a city-state.

 

[pecksniff]

But the filibuster is not the topic of this thread. The topic is more in the nature of the Senate rejecting bills the House passes. That should never happen, and it is never a good thing when it does happen, and I have yet to see any counterexample in this thread or anywhere else.

Still haven't seen any.

 

[ll74]

Still haven't seen any.

The house is a collection of local representatives pushing for laws that benefit their locality. The Senate is a representative of the entirety of the state. It's a good balance, but the house and Senate both exist to come out with a good compromise from local and state level.

 

[Gorgoroth]

When looking at the ‘cooling’ idea, remember 2 things
1. The Senate is the antithesis of ‘democratic’
2. Until 1913, Senators were elected by state legislatures, not by general election. The Senate was made to protect the powerful from the masses.

Yes, and it's a shame that was changed, it should be the states that select senators, not the general public.

It wasn't made to protect the powerful from the masses, it was to give representation to the states so high population states don't just railroad the low population states. Same reason we have all the other "RACIST!!!" and evil things the left hates for standing in the way of the majority having total and absolute power to pillage other peoples way of life.

Keeps CA/NY from totally rat fucking the other 48 states simply because they are over populated, mismanaged and corrupt dumpster fires. I LOVE how much it absolutely sends the left to the moon they can't just popular vote me out of my way of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Still haven't seen any.

That's because the only legislation you don't like is the legislation that allows people to keep some shred of liberty or ownership of their own labor.

There isn't any level of authoritarianism you don't support so long as it's you who's getting the authority.

 

[YDB95]

I LOVE how much it absolutely sends the left to the moon they can't just popular vote me out of my way of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Exactly how do you feel the left is trying to spoil your way of life?

How dare you question the wisdom of the Founders who had slaves, and didn’t let women vote.
Also, I’d have to check, but I think in the beginning you had to own land, but I might be remembering incorrectly

That is correct, you had to be a landowning white male age 21 or over.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Exactly how do you feel the left is trying to spoil your way of life?

It's a fact, not a feeling.

I like all the things you are against and seek to control/take from me.

My property, my ability to engage in commerce so that I might obtain more property and wealth.

My ability to arm and defend myself.

My right to a fair trial, equality under the law and residency in a state that isn't run like NY or CA.

All things the left is adamantly and openly against in the name of "social justice" and equity.

My life as it is in both MN and MT is totally fucking illegal, just about everything I do is a super-max prison sentence in authoritarian "progressive" states like NY and CA. Making money, shooting guns, driving race cars.... having a nuclear family with mixed ultra-privileged asian/jewish kids. I'm literally everything you and yours despise, call racist and want punished out of existence.

 

[YDB95]

It's a fact, not a feeling.

I like all the things you are against and seek to control/take from me.

My property, my ability to engage in commerce so that I might obtain more property and wealth.

My ability to arm and defend myself.

My right to a fair trial, equality under the law and residency in a state that isn't run like NY or CA.

All things the left is adamantly and openly against in the name of "social justice" and equity.

My life as it is in both MN and MT is totally fucking illegal, just about everything I do is a super-max prison sentence in authoritarian "progressive" states like NY and CA.

Oh, it's BoBo. Whatever happened to the alliterative names?

I would ask just what makes you think we're trying to take away any of the above (spoiler alert: we aren't), but now that I know who you are, I know you'll just respond with links to progressives saying something else entirely. Don't bother!