The Senate and the House need to write legislation together --it's wasting time to do otherwise

[CreekDog]

Conference is broken anyway.

And if they passed laws with the same language/text in them, there would be no need for it.

21st Century, yes they can.

[Xithras]

1. They should have abolished the Senate in 1913

Originally, the House was supposed to represent the interests of the people, and the Senate the interests of the states. When the 17th Amendment turned Senators into popularly elected positions, it converted Congress into an institution where two popularly elected bodies just sit around all day disagreeing with each other. Both wings of Congress now serve the same function...representing the people who elected them. Think about that. You vote for a Senator, and a Representative, who then go to Washington to argue with each other. How does that make sense?

Abolish the Senate. Congress should represent the people, and you only need one body to do that.

[CreekDog]

2. No argument from me

:rofl:

[DrToast]

3. Amen to that...

Though it will never happen. :(

[liberalpragmatist]

4. I totally agree

Practically speaking, the current makeup of the Senate really isn't very defensible. Yes, we hear about the "Connecticut Compromise" but people don't realize that most of the Founders people actually care for HATED the Senate and thought it was a terrible idea from the start. The people responsible for the Senate were the 18th Century equivalents of Ben Nelson - parochial pols from small states. Hamilton and Madison weren't responsible for the Senate; the people responsible for the Senate were such illustrious figures as Gunning Bedford and William Paterson. I'm pretty sure that's not who people are referring to when they invoke the "wisdom of the Founders."

Plus, the problem the Senate claimed to solve never actually emerged. New York and California aren't ganging up on Wyoming. And, to be fair, why exactly SHOULD people in Wyoming count several dozen times what people in large states count? At least when the Senate first emerged, the states were relatively close to each other in population. Today, the largest states completely dwarf the smallest, to a vastly greater extent than they did in 1789.

Of course, getting rid of the Senate is close to impossible, and adjusting the apportionment is the one part of the Constitution that is unamendable. However, it may be practical to try and reduce its power, like most countries have done with their upper houses. You could create a process whereby the House can override the Senate, via a supermajority or some kind of delay.

Of course, one thing that absolutely should be abolished are STATE SENATES, which serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Because of one-person-one-vote rulings, every state senate simply represents the exact same group of people - in the same proportions - twice. At least you can credibly claim that the U.S. Senate represents state interests. States Senates don't represent county interests or regional interests any more than state lower chambers do.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Or at least severely limited their power

Most western democracies have an upper house but have taken away its ability to veto legislation passed by the lower house.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. I agree - that's probably more realistic

Still a really heavy lift, but it's at least somewhat conceivable. And you could even draft an amendment that said that power would only be phased in after 10 or even 20 years, thereby giving current senators their time in the sun.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. A friend of mine was totally confused about this

This guy's a pretty educated guy, but like many, while he followed politics, he never followed congressional sausage-making anywhere near as closely as this effort.

We were talking about the process one day and he said - "I thought the House passes a bill, the Senate takes it up, amends it, and then the president signs. You mean each house independently passes their own bill and then they have to negotiate a new one?"

I said: "Yes. And not just that. Each separate committee in each house with jurisdiction has to draft and pass THEIR own versions of the bill before they can pass either house."

His response: "Well, that's stupid."