Different reform of the Senate

[black angel]

the Seventeenth Amendment made the USA Senate an elected body, but what if the USA had done what Canada and the UK did, and leave the upper house unelected and cut back it's powers.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by black angel

the Seventeenth Amendment made the USA Senate an elected body, but what if the USA had done what Canada and the UK did, and leave the upper house unelected and cut back it's powers.

So how are you proposing that the senate be filled? State legislatures still? Governors make apointments? Presidential selections? Hereditary seats? Are senators now for life? And what powers, exactly, does the senate lose, and who takes them (president or house)?

[mowque]

I still think it will just happen at a later date.

It was part of a larger process. By the time the 17th was passed, more states did it then not, so they outnumbered the 'non-elects' hence passing it.

[black angel]

Originally Posted by Atreus

So how are you proposing that the senate be filled? State legislatures still? Governors make apointments? Presidential selections? Hereditary seats? Are senators now for life? And what powers, exactly, does the senate lose, and who takes them (president or house)?

I'd say State legislatures, as for powers IDK, but they'd most likely go to the House

[black angel]

Originally Posted by mowque

I still think it will just happen at a later date.

It was part of a larger process. By the time the 17th was passed, more states did it then not, so they outnumbered the 'non-elects' hence passing it.

um, there were 8 states that had election pre-1917, the states are Oregon(law changed 1906) elected Class 2 Senator in 1906, Nevada(law changed 1908) elected Class 3 in 1908, Arizona(1911) elected both Senators pending statehood, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota(1912) elected a Class 2, and Maryland(1913) elected a Class 1 special election

[mowque]

Originally Posted by black angel

um, there were 8 states that had election pre-1917, the states are Oregon(law changed 1906) elected Class 2 Senator in 1906, Nevada(law changed 1908) elected Class 3 in 1908, Arizona(1911) elected both Senators pending statehood, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota(1912) elected a Class 2, and Maryland(1913) elected a Class 1 special election

Increasingly, Senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected Senators either as nominees of party primaries, or in conjunction with a general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the new Senators supported measures that argued for new legislation, but in order to achieve total election reform, a constitutional amendment was required.
The Congress had resisted proposing the amendment and so the states pushed to take action into their hands. Usually only the Congress proposes amendments, but two thirds of the states can call for a new constitutional convention to propose amendments (in either case, ratification by three-fourths of the states is required for adoption). By 1910, 31 states had called for such a convention (one short of the then-required number), putting additional pressure on the Congress to propose the amendment.[3

It is Wikipedia, but I thought it was true...
]

[black angel]

Originally Posted by mowque

It is Wikipedia, but I thought it was true...
]

not untrue, a primaries isn't a general election, like how Alberta has Senate nominee election, it's only as meaningful as the people in power want it to be

[TNF]

Well, you could always simply abolish the Senate altogether. The Socialist Party had that as part of their platform in 1912, and even today, the Greens still cling to that idea. That's a pretty big 'reform' in itself, though. I'm not sure how you'd get it done. Put Debs in charge?

Then again, there are a lot of folks proposing the same thing. George Norris, IIRC, called for a unicameral legislature in the interest of saving money.

[Iori]

I don't know, the whole reason the Senate exists is because of the whole thing about states having a say, so I don't think you could curtail its powers to terribly much.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Iori

I don't know, the whole reason the Senate exists is because of the whole thing about states having a say, so I don't think you could curtail its powers to terribly much.

More to the point, eliminating the senate would require the senate voting itself out of existence. I'm not sure how plausible this is, especially for senators from under-populated states.

[RogueBeaver]

In Canada, the Senate is a retirement home for political hacks for the most part. A unicameral legislature would be more in line with a Parliamentary system.

[Greenlanterncorps]

Originally Posted by Atreus

More to the point, eliminating the senate would require the senate voting itself out of existence. I'm not sure how plausible this is, especially for senators from under-populated states.

The problem with eliminating the Senate is the Constitution itself.

It's the last part of Article V, highlighted below:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.



Eliminating the Senate would, by definition, deprive a state of it's equal suffrage in the Senate. Therefore you can only eliminate the Senate by unanimous consent of the States. Indeed it would be easier to repeal the first amendment, than to eliminate the Senate.


By the way, Article V is one huge run on sentence. It's a good thing the Constitution was not graded for grammar.

[Derek Jackson]

I suspect that an amendment to artical 5 would be in order. It did NOT prevent amendments to itself. Still passing two amendments by two thirds would be hard.

I suspect that it would be more easily obtained at a Convention than via Congress.

Of course people have been elected to bodies with the aim of ending them. Still getting two thirds so elected is very hard to imagine.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Greenlanterncorps

Snip

More or less what I was going for. Not quite as specific*, but in general terms that is what I was thinking of. Removing the senate will require a constitutional ammendment, since the existence of the senate is enshrined in the constitution. That requires strong support in the house and among the states, but also in the senate. And the senate isnt very likely to vote itself out of existence (not to mention the numerous states that would be opposed).

*Technically speaking, one could make an argument that, were the senate abolished, the states would all have equal representation in the (non-existent) body. Although I suppose problems would arise if even one state decided not to toe the line on this issue.