Our Enemy, The Senate
Over at his new blog, ex-TPer Ryan Powers has an excellent post reviewing the opening sections of Master of the Senate which recount the United States Senate’s extraordinary history of standing in the way of justice and progress. He quotes Caro:
If, for eighty-seven years, every attempt to enact federal voting rights legislation had been blocked in Congress, most of the more significant of these bills had been blocked in the Senate, for it was in the Senate that the power of what had come to be called the “Southern Bloc”…was the strongest. … Hundreds of pieces of legislation had been proposed–bills to give black Americans equality in education, in employment, in housing, in transportation, in public accommodations, as well as to protect them against being beaten, burned, and mutilated. … Exactly one of these bills had passed–in 1875–and that lone statute had later been declared unconstitutional.
And as Ryan says, this is the appropriate context in which to consider the Senate’s role in health reform:
But all of this is a long way remarking on the fact that the structure of the Senate – with its self-imposed requirement to have 60 votes to move on virtually anything – seems to be giving Senate Republicans and moderate Democrats just enough rope to hang themselves with. Indeed, Senate Republicans and a handful of moderate Democrats seem exceptionally committed to ensuring that history remembers them as it remembers the Southern Bloc of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: as principled defenders of the injustice of the status quo. Today, as the Senate Health Committee reported out what is perhaps the most progressive health care reform plan, the Senate Republicans rushed to hold a press conference denouncing the plan. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement, saying, “Americans want us to take the time necessary to make health care less expensive and more accessible, while preserving what they like about our system.” For McConnell, 75 years isn’t quite long enough.
And it’s important to be real about this. Even if Barack Obama manages to sign a universal health care bill, that bill will be a much worse piece of legislation than the legislation he could have signed if the Senate operated on a majority rules principle. That bill, in turn, would be somewhat worse than the bill Obama could have signed if the Senate Democratic caucus could at least bring itself to set greed and egomania aside and agree to vote for cloture no matter what. And that bill, in turn, would be substantially worse than the bill Obama could sign were there no U.S. Senate at all. And the reason—the only reason—that the Senate exists at all is that it was deemed a pragmatically necessary political compromise over 200 years ago.
The dead hand of that compromise has been responsible for enormous human ills over the interim period and will continue to be responsible for such ills even under optimistic scenarios. Consider energy legislation. People will die—a lot of people—as a result of this compromise. And nobody wants to talk about it!
Ryan says Senators who are blocking reform will be blackening their name. And I hope so. But one of the secondary or tertiary problems with the Senate is that there’s a general social and cultural refusal to plainly acknowledge its deeply problematic role. Senators are treated by the press as akin to ennobled dukes and counts rather than petty tyrants. And when progressive members of the House of Representatives manage to acquire Senate seats, the tendency is for them to immediately fall in love with their dysfunctional branch’s perks rather than to arrive on the scene with a determination to reform the system in the interests of justice.
63 Responses to “Our Enemy, The Senate”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 15th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
How can this post not have been titled “Ryan M. Powers Is Typing”?
July 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Even if Barack Obama manages to sign a universal health care bill, that bill will be a much worse piece of legislation than the legislation he could have signed if the Senate operated on a majority rules principle.
I’m actually not convinced this is necessarily true. The Blue Dogs in the House are also a constraint, and in any event, at the end there is going to be some sort of compromise in conference that produces the bill Obama signs. So somewhat worse? Sure. Much worse? Maybe not.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The reason no one talks about it is because there is no good solution.
Just as the Senate is a significant roadblock in the way of progressive reform, it is even more a roadblock against its own demise.
Single payer can’t get a fair hearing because of the Senate. Why do you think “getting rid of the Senate” will be better?
July 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
What will eventually be needed is sort of the Honduran solution – an appeal by a US President for a national referendum on changing the constitution in an unconstitutional manner, in order, above all, to get rid of the Senate.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The reason no one talks about it is because there is no good solution.
Many people keep pointing out all the problems with American institutions and all their veto points. Honest question: are there any solutions other than unicameralism?
July 15th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Finally, the mystery of what Ryan Powers was typing is solved!
July 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
No one will die due to compromises in the climate bill, although a lot of us will be very much poorer as a result.
And for all the excitement about unicameral, simple majority legislatures, you should ponder what an excited majority might get itself into after a crisis event.
As to #4, I just love the call for revolution. If you want such an amendment, there’s a process for it outside the federal government: the states themselves can call for a convention.
I know that following the law is hard for earnest leftists, but there it is…
July 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Racial history seems to be “the appropriate context” for viewing everything on this weblog, but Ryan Powers’s argument is unnecessarily roundabout. If he is convinced that lack of his preferred health care system is an injustice on its own terms, then obviously anything preventing it from being implemented is a bad thing. It logically adds nothing to the argument to say “lack of civil rights legislation is also an injustice.” This one is really a stretch.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Um, is Powers suggesting that anyone from the “Southern Bloc” was ever somehow embarrassed by his civil rights obstructionism? That sounds like wishful thinking.
I expect that the Senators who block healthcare will be proud of their actions ’til their dying day.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
DTM: yes. Because the Blue Dogs have much less procedural power than they would in the Senate, and because it’s easier to whip them than it would be in the Senate.
Chris: eliminating the filibuster is one way. Amending the Constitution to make the Senate more representative is another.
The thing that doesn’t really get mentioned is that there have been successful efforts to change the Senate: the passage of the 17th amendment (direct election) in 1913; the invention of Rule 22 (cloture) in 1917, first used to end debate on the Treaty of Versailles; the invention of budget reconciliation in 1974; the 1975 amendment of Rule 22 from 2/3rds of present and voting to 3/5ths of sworn-in.
The real question is whether, if Democrats can get 2/3rds of the Senate present and voting necessary to change the Senate Rules. That’s 67 votes by the way. Then we could fix the Senate.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Honest question: are there any solutions other than unicameralism?
Maybe, but the barriers to implementing them might be as high as for unicameralism anyway. (Except for abolition of the filibuster, which would be only a small patch.)
For example, it could be made illegal for one chamber to amend a bill that had originated in and already passed the other chamber – such bills could be subject to up-or-down votes only. Conference committees would thus become unnecessary (because a bill would pass both chambers in the same form or not at all), and therefore, return of the conferenced bill to both houses for re-ratification would too. A House bill would go to an up-or-down Senate vote and then, if it passed, straight to the President, and vice versa for a Senate bill.
That would preserve the role of the Senate in having a second opinion (and unfortunately also in being unrepresentative of the nation), while removing a lot of procedural roadblocks and delays and making some procedural shenanigans impossible. But I don’t know if it would require a constitutional amendment – if not, at least a radical revision of Congressional rules.
P.S. Perhaps one reason for Senators being treated like nobility is that the model for bicameral legislation was Parliament, and the Senate corresponds to the House of Lords. Including its irritating obstructionism, on occasion.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
RYAN POWERS IS TYPING!!
July 15th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Honest question: are there any solutions other than unicameralism?
You could have bicameralism with 2 bodies that are simply represented in different ways. One could have geographic representation, and one could be by age cohort. Or income level. Or something else. Not sure it’s a great idea, but its an alternative. Of course, you could just have 2 geographically elected houses, but you cut the districts in different ways.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
James Robertson-
no one will die because of failed climate change legislation? The best reason to support climate change legislation is because millions of people will die if we don’t do something about climate change. Most of them, of course are in the third world, and many of them aren’t born yet, but that’s the crux of the reason to reduce carbon emissions-people will die. Disagreeing with that is fine, but at least acknowledge the argument.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Okay, Matt, we get it. The Senate sucks. I agree.
So what do you propose we actually DO about it?
The only way to abolish the Senate would be through a constitutional convention convened by the states, and it’s exceedingly unlikely that they would approve the abolition of a body that professes to protect state-by-state interests.
How about amending it so that it’s not two votes per state? One proposal I’ve heard is to convert the Senate to a body elected by a mixed-member proportional system like the German Bundestag. Every state has ONE senator, and an additional, equal number of senators are elected by a national list.
More modestly, how would we just get rid of the filibuster? Pull a nuclear option? Challenge it in the Supreme Court?
I’d like to hear some real solutions – ones that, even if unlikely, are at least plausible.
All this being said, I suspect something will give at some point. Most likely in the absence of filibuster reform, you’ll see ALL major legislation pushed through via filibuster reform.
And perhaps sometime near the end of the next century, when we’re all dead, large states which by then will have over 100x the population of states like Wyoming, may really start pushing for ending the one-vote per state provision.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Shorter Yglesias – I’m gonna keep wankin’ away on this.
Mike
July 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Because the Blue Dogs have much less procedural power than they would in the Senate, and because it’s easier to whip them than it would be in the Senate.
On the first point, the Blue Dogs don’t necessarily need procedural power because they can actually vote down legislation (assuming blanket Republican opposition).
On the second point, I agree, but that is why I also agreed a final bill coming out of conference will be somewhat worse than what the House bill will be.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Damn you, New Jersey!
July 15th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Andrew, abolishing the Senate becomes a lot less likely if you demand that no intermediate steps, such as endlessly pointing out how corrupt the institution is, are never taken. You say ‘never’ as if a being that lives all of 60 years before they die has any idera what that concept even means. 180 years ago, slavery was ‘never’ going to be abolished, women were ‘never’ going to have the right to vote. 40 years ago, a black man was ‘never’ going to get electred President.
There are things in this world that are actually impossible. This isn’t one of them. It’s just really, really hard and will take a long time. As noted, if you only pay attention to what is possible in the scope of a single life, a lot of things look impossible when they are, in fact, inevitable.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Even shorter Yglesias – Waahhh!!!
July 15th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Great idea when it works in your favor. However, I remember a couple judges Bush nominated that I would have hated on the bench.
Oh – and I also like Social Security. Yes, that would have been privatized if it weren’t for the filibuster.
So, yes, Health Care will be suckier than it otherwise would have been, but Grandma will still get her check. Call it a wash.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
How about amending it so that it’s not two votes per state?
Nope. I don’t have the document in front of me, but the existence of a legislative body with equal representation for each state is the one article in the constitution that isn’t amendable. We would literally need a new constitution to abolish the Senate.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Where was the 60 vote requirement when the Democrats were in the minority?
I wouldn’t mind the filibuster so much if it could have prevented Iraq, or the Patriot Act, or the Bankruptcy Bill, or any other number of such items. But somehow it never did.
The answer is that the Democrats have been running a game.
And until they pay a price for this game, they’ll keep on playing it. And no – the rare primary challenge ain’t enough of a price.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
“People will die—a lot of people—as a result of this compromise. And nobody wants to talk about it!”
My God, if people would only let that sink in. Perhaps too truthful for the genteel Beltway folks, but the truth is that people are dying needlessly to maintain the profit structure in our health care delivery system.
Pitchforks, people!
July 15th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Re: And for all the excitement about unicameral, simple majority legislatures, you should ponder what an excited majority might get itself into after a crisis event.
And when excxatly has the Senate prevented that scenario? Adams and the Federalists enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Wilson locked up anti-war dissidents, FDR interned the Japanese, and more recently Bush got away with all sorts of crap– all with the express consent of the World’s Most Exclusive Club. The branch of government which is supposed to oreserve our liberties from majoritarian mobocracy is the Judicial Branch. The Senate seems mostly insterested in preserving the wealth and status of the elite few.
Re: existence of a legislative body with equal representation for each state is the one article in the constitution that isn’t amendable.
How so? Everything and anything in the Constitution can be amended. Even if there is some statement that “X cannot be amended”, then one can amend that statement to say “no longer in force; X is amendable”
July 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I wouldn’t mind the filibuster so much if it could have prevented Iraq, or the Patriot Act, or the Bankruptcy Bill, or any other number of such items. But somehow it never did.
Those were all measures with significant bipartisan support, so the filibuster wasn’t relevant.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Yeah crying about the Senate has gotten old. Give us a real solution or just shut up about it already. If Harry Reid wanted to, he could easily use the nuclear option and get a ruling that supermajority requirements to pass bills are un-Constitutional. But clearly for a variety of reasons he doesn’t want to. Until we have a different majority leader, we are doomed to have legislation held hostage by Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins in order to get enough votes for cloture and pass anything. It’s just a fact of life for now and we’ll have to accept that the only legislation that can pass is what Ben Nelson deems acceptable.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
#14 – the bill the house passed won’t do anything in the realm of reducing carbon emissions. If, like me, you don’t think there’s a problem anyway, adding the expense is just stupid. If, like you, you think there is a problem, then you should be upset at the utter stupidity of the bill.
The only people who win with this bill are at Goldman Sachs. I do find it ironic that the entire left has rallied to enrich them.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
#14 – the bill the house passed won’t do anything in the realm of reducing carbon emissions. If, like me, you don’t think there’s a problem anyway, adding the expense is just stupid. If, like you, you think there is a problem, then you should be upset at the utter stupidity of the bill.
Plus, the models are junk.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124956.htm
July 15th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Let’s cut to the heart of the matter — the Senate is a fascist organization, as its official seal cheerfully flaunts. Anyone who supports the Senate is objectively pro-fasces.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Another Senate post by Matt, another repeat by me; maybe a thread will actually start one of these days:
1. It is better that congress should have a greatly deliberative body as one of its parts than for it to be completely representative.
For me, prior to democracy as a good, there is the respect of others as human beings like yourself. That is to say that it is only because I understand my fellow man as an end in himself, not as a means, that I can even consider letting those who disagree with me, even if he is part of a majority, from governing me.
From this, we can say that there are other values that can potentially override democracy in creating institutions for a just government — one of which, I would argue, is the value of discussion, whereby no policy is made without all interested parties saying their peace, and where those that govern are forced to make at least some justification to their detractors. Which is to say that before a just society is democratic, it is open and deliberative.
And I, for one, am proud* to live in a country that boasts the world’s most deliberative body.
Yes, this loquacious body has been an obstruction to routine legislation and progressive change alike; the flip side of institutionalized consultation is that
transformation, whether it is for good or ill, must be done either by degree or with the wide consent of the nation.^
* on the whole
^ I should also note brief that this post is not a blanket defense of Senate procedure, and certainly not of every instance of its power of restraint.
2. The Senate cannot become representative in any meaningful way without damaging its deliberative capacity.
There are a number of aspects of the upper body that lend it to its style (such as longer, disjointed terms), but the Senate rules certainly top the list; and one thing that makes those rules even feasible is the Senate’s relatively small size (less than a quarter the size of the House).
If every state is represented in the Senate, that leaves 50 votes to distribute according to population — when California is 69 times the size of Wyoming!
Thus, in practice, representation of all 50 states by population is incompatible with its deliberative nature.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Quite obviously if the Senate Democrats were unhappy with how Reid was doing things, they would replace him.
As I said, the Democrats are running a game.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“Honest question: are there any solutions other than unicameralism?”
Yes! Take a look at the Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949 Parliament Act of 1911 (and 1949), which is how the British handled the House of Lords. Or at how Canadians handle their Senate.
Note that no members of either of these chambers have ever been elected by the general public. But they have been rendered harmless, even benevolent, because the political class just won’t tolerate undemocratic institutions from wielding alot of power (no court in these countries also has the power of the US Supreme Court). We could at least take away the US Senate’s power over the budget.
Since the Senate now has exactly one hundred members, I like the idea of electing it by nationwide party list representation. You get 1% of the national vote every six years (more than the population of a House district), you are in the Senate. But constitutionally and practically, I think it would just be easier to take away some of its powers and leave the composition unchanged.
You could also abolish the states, which would have the practical effect of abolishing the Senate as well.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Sorry about the clumsy link.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Point, you fucking dope, the Senate doesn’t “deliberate,” it simply cuts deals for its campaign contributors.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
SqueakyRat
Does that mean that the House differs from the Senate in “simply cutting deals for its campaign contributors”? How so?
July 15th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
And perhaps sometime near the end of the next century, when we’re all dead, large states which by then will have over 100x the population of states like Wyoming, may really start pushing for ending the one-vote per state provision.
There is an obvious solution. Large states like California need to be broken up into two or more smaller states.
How so? Everything and anything in the Constitution can be amended. Even if there is some statement that “X cannot be amended”, then one can amend that statement to say “no longer in force; X is amendable”
Translation: those provisions in the document? We were crossing our fingers when we wrote those.
The fact of the matter is that the country is designed to have a lot of veto points for legislation; the Founders wanted to protect us from activist governments usurping lots of power.
Matt likes usurping power, and wants unlimited government, so he hates the Constitution.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
There is an obvious solution. Large states like California need to be broken up into two or more smaller states.
You’d have to break California up into something like 70 states to have them the same size as Wyoming. In fact, the whole country would have to have something like 600 states.
So, yeah, California should probably be broken up. But states like Wyoming also need to be merged into reasonable-size units. And that probably could be done through amendments. Speaking of which . . .
Everything and anything in the Constitution can be amended. Even if there is some statement that “X cannot be amended”, then one can amend that statement to say “no longer in force; X is amendable”
Unfortunately, your premise is incorrect. The precise problem is the relevant part is actually in the Article about amendments as a limitation on that process, and so you can’t use the amendment process to eliminate this clause.
Of course you could get together a constitutional convention, and adopt a new constitution just like the old one, but minus this provision, and plus some sort of ratification procedure not requiring all the states to consent. And if individual states then balked, you could do Civil War II.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Re: existence of a legislative body with equal representation for each state is the one article in the constitution that isn’t amendable.
How so? Everything and anything in the Constitution can be amended. Even if there is some statement that “X cannot be amended”, then one can amend that statement to say “no longer in force; X is amendable”
So I guess you could do it, provided every state gave consent.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I also wonder about the lots of people dying. Who will die? I seem to recall a post a while back talking about third world people “drowning” because of the rise in sea level. I thought that was figurative. I hope it was. Because, you know, the rise would be gradual. People could move out of the way.
Or are we talking about other impacts? What are those? It’s important to remember that the solutions to global warming also have impacts. A while back the CBO offered some suggestions about what those economic costs might be. They seemed kind of moderate, as a percentage of GDP. But it still amounted to billions if not trillions of dollars. Which would certainly have some kind of impact on people somewhere.
So, it’s a legitimate question, I think. Who are all these people who are going to die?
July 15th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
If the Senate Dems really do have legitimate reasons to keep the supermajority filibuster provisions, I’d like to see those reasons spelled out somewhere. Seriously, anyone got any good links on this? Show me the case for keeping ‘em.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Semi-OT: Yglesias keeps getting better. It’s a very encouraging thing to watch.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
James Robertson Says: No one will die due to compromises in the climate bill, although a lot of us will be very much poorer as a result.
I know you would like to believe this, but as the really disastrous consequences of global warming become more likely, the prospect of people dying becomes more likely also.
Consider the possibilities of nuclear war between China and India, as both countries suffer disastrous agricultural losses when the Himalayan glaciers are lost. Billions of deaths are likely, and the war could easily spread to Russia and Japan, and eventually the U.S.
And this is just one possible scenario – there are lots of others, up to and including the extinction of the human race. Are you sure you are willing to take a chance on this?
July 15th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
SamM, climate change scenarios suggest there will be an increased likelihood of catastrophic weather events in some areas. If that happens someplace like Bangladesh, you could get massive flooding — on the order of New Orleans, but worse because of higher population density and fewer resources to deal with the problem. You could, in such situations, see high death tolls.
There are other scenarios as well; disease outbreaks, for examples, or famine because of desertification.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:05 am
OOf course you could get together a constitutional convention, and adopt a new constitution just like the old one, but minus this provision, and plus some sort of ratification procedure not requiring all the states to consent. And if individual states then balked, you could do Civil War II.
Or you could just leave those states out of the union. This sounds dangerous, but I would suspect that in such a case, most of the non-ratifying states would eventually go along with the plan in order not to be isolated. (The original Constitution would only go into effect in states which ratified it, so it was theoretically possible that, for example, Rhode Island could have chosen to stay independent. As it turns out, none of the anti-Constitution states decided to stay that way).
You’d have to break California up into something like 70 states to have them the same size as Wyoming.
I’m thinking about reducing the discrepancy (e.g. so no state is more than 15-20 times larger than Wyoming), not about eleiminating it entirely.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Well then I guess you know something that NASA and the world’s climatologists don’t. Here’s an article, linked to by an organization extremely concerned about global warming, that indicates that the link between GW and storm intensity is… not so solid:
http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/2008/04/14/global-warming-researchers-reverse-stance-on-storm-intensity-theory/
Here’s NASA saying that the jury is still out:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Hurricanes/hurricanes_3.php
MY occasionally takes GW denialists to task when they laugh every time there is a cold day and say it proves their skepticism. And he is right to take them to task for that.
But he would probably do well to step back from the language about millions of people drowning in really intense storms, or talking about all these people dying.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:21 am
I don’t think Senators would mind all that much if their role was mostly ceremonial. They could drink and carouse to their hearts content and no one would really care.
We should buy them off; pay them outrageous money -say $5 million a year- to sit on their lazy asses and not cause trouble.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Ahem:
This can’t happen without 100% approval from the states or a bloody coup.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:54 am
The Senators from the smallest 21 states represent 33 million people. Roughly 10% of the population.
Think about that.
With a filibuster, potentially 10% of the population can kill any legislation.
Get rid of the filibuster? Well, that’s a little better, but still awful.
The top 26 states make up 52 million.
So even assuming a simple majority needed to pass legislation, potentially 16% of the represented population can kill legislation.
Depressed yet?
July 16th, 2009 at 4:03 am
OK, so Article V won’t allow you to bring amendments affecting equal state suffrage. But Article V will allow you to bring an amendment to Article V itself. Simple two-stage solution:
1. Pass an amendment to Article V, striking out that limitation;
2. Pass another one, killing the Senate.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:12 am
1. Pass an amendment to Article V, striking out that limitation;
2. Pass another one, killing the Senate.
That would have to pass the Senate itself.
In any case, sober second thought, folks, and restraint from the vagaries of mob democracy. I am channeling Alexander Hamilton here.
The notion that a complete man-hater like Pelosi should dictate US legislation is ludicrous. If not for the Senate, we wouldn’t even have had Taft-Hartley.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:02 am
How can the United States live up to its full potential as a modern society when veto power is invested in the most backward, reactionary part of the country?
July 16th, 2009 at 9:01 am
That would have to pass the Senate itself.
It wouldn’t, actually.
From Article V, again:
July 16th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Also, a gigantic “huh?” to the rest of Myles’s post. Is that post a joke? Pelosi is a “complete man-hater”? What on earth are you talking about? And Taft-Hartley? Putting aside the fact that most people here probably think Taft-Hartley was a bad idea, it passed the house with over 2/3 support in order to pass over Truman’s veto. Why was the Senate necessary for this?
July 16th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Me too. They’re on the bench.
No, it wouldn’t.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:51 am
The Senate is representative. It just represents some people disproportionately.
The problem with the “world’s most deliberative body” statement is that it does not actually mean anything.
Senators give show speeches for C-Span. They utter mildly provacative statements and guage the effects in polls. The only debate the Senate has had in the last 25 years was the show debate between Warner and Byrd on the Iraq war, which was already a fait accompli.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
The answer is to add states to the union – DC, Puerto Rico, and split California into two states. Since the upper legislative chamber can’t be reformed (see Article V), the solution is to work within the federal structure. Passing progressive legislation depends on increasing the number of states.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I always got around the unanimous consent to equal suffrage in the Senate restriction by saying that an amendment that eliminates the Senate does not violate this, because every state will have the same suffrage in the non-Senate: zero!
More realistically, if we can’t get rid of the Senate by simple amendment, propose an amendment that strips the Senate of all or most of its powers – say by eliminating its power to confirm appointments, or reducing its term to that of the House (2 years), or eliminating the requirement that legislation must pass both houses of Congress.
If we had a rump Senate whose only power was that it could override legislation if an overwhelming majority of Senators (say three-fourths) opposed it, that would be fine with me.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am
“No, it wouldn’t.”
Care to elaborate?
“Senators give show speeches for C-Span. They utter mildly provacative statements and guage the effects in polls.”
I take it you don’t think much of congressional debate or deliberation; this is a conversation worth having.*
*Alas, that I have so little down time ATM.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
There’s a valid place for having a Senate as a “sober second thought,” but the Senate as it currently exists has nothing to do with that.
Here’s what you do: pass a constitutional amendment saying that if the Senate does not approve legislation after a year or two, the House can vote on it a second time, and if they still want to pass it, then it passes with or without the Senate’s approval. That gives the Senate plenty of time to soberly deliberate about the bill, but it takes away their power to kill it entirely. And since you’re not abolishing the Senate, it only requires 3/4 of the states to approve.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:38 am
[...] 16, 2009 by Michael With health care reform seemingly running aground in the Senate, there has been some interesting discussion lately about the many institutional problems facing a genuinely [...]
July 16th, 2009 at 11:39 am
In the face of a 67-vote cloture threshold (with all voting) to change Senate rules? Not in this generation, but someday. Maybe.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am
The vote to lay the groundwork for privatization was 53-46 against. No filibuster was involved.