Does anyone think the Senate is becoming like 'The House of Lords?

[Ichingcarpenter]

Edited to add links and also add that English history
was part of my high School education. I know of few
Americans that are aware of it unless through college courses
or personal education.


The House of Lords was once more powerful but was made up
mostly of the rich elites, clergy and royalty.

I think when the founders made the senate they
hoped it would never become a house of Lords but
it has.

It wasn't until royalty was overthrown and marginalized
after the English Civil Wars was the power of that chamber
became what it is today.






Anyway discuss.... what's good about it and bad.
Here's a wiki length to read up on it.

house of Lords
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

English Civil War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

[Captain Hilts]

1. No because they're the ones REALLY pushing for a public option!!!!!

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. The House was the power push behind the public option

But this doesn't address the didactic philosophical question
i


The only thing the Senate does is allow areas that have minor populations
be represented equally in power but disproportional to a representative government based on people and not based on land. The Senate still exhibits more power than the House.

[damntexdem]

17. And the equal representation in the Senate is the only part of the Constitution ...

that can't be amended.

That is, unless the provision so stating is itself amended. But don't expect smaller-population states to ratify any such amendment, anyway. So the Founders did pretty much ensure the disproportionate representation.

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. Maybe Election reform might resolve some of the disparity

which would be a start, but right now I see the power of the Senate
terribly in need of reform in a variety of ethnological prognosis

[treestar]

22. Are there enough of those states to stop it?

[Recursion]

19. More power and less power

They deal with treaties and confirmations, but they also can't initiate taxes.

[SoCalDem]

2. Nah.. they have ALWAYS seen themselves as superior

They get SIX year terms, so in their minds, only SCOTUS outranks them :)

[treestar]

3. No, but it was originally meant to represent States rather than people

The Senators were originally elected by State Representatives rather than the people.

In modern times, it seems less desirable than it must have seemed to the FF at the time.

But it was meant to be a bit anti-Democratic. The filibuster just makes it worse.

[Recursion]

21. The filibuster isn't in the Constitution, though

That's just part of the Senate's rules; they could change it tomorrow if they wanted.

[kiva]

4. Actually the founders hoped it would be the elitist half of Congress.

Between the length of the terms and the fact that originally Senators were selected by state legislatures it's clear that the founders saw the Senate as a curb for the democratically elected (and more volatile) House.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. I thought this relevant to the age when they drew up the constitution

However the volatility and power has been passed to the Senate
in my opinion, they are no longer the sober power anymore on the
tyranny of the people's wishes. Just agents of the aristocracy.

We do have a few that are real there, but they are far and few between.

The declaration of war by Congress is now a mute point.

The powers of the two houses are what I think need to be addressed.

Now, don't get me started on the Supreme Court.

[theoldman]

5. The Senate has always looked upon itself as an august group.

In the past, senators were a little above the average person in congress. Some still are today but in general the standards have dropped.

[imdjh]

10. A senator is much more powerful than a house member.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Not in any way whatsoever, Senators are elected

And much of what they do is based on the fact that they want to get re-elected and also that many of them hope to be President some day. Un-elected bodies like the House of Lords do tend to have a conservative bias but they also are free from electoral pressures. A senate that is like the House of Lords would probably have a lot of libertarians.

[onenote]

7. in fact, many of the founders wanted the senate to be like the House of Lords

The House of Representatives was the "people's house" elected through a popular vote while Senators were to be appointed. Ultimately, a compromise was struck whereby Senators were elected, but by the state legislature, not the people. Take a look at a list of the members of the Senate in the early days of the nation -- I think you'll find a fair number of people who could be considered, for their time, "rich elites"

[SoCalDem]

12. Cups v saucers

the house was the HOT beverage, practically boiling over the top..always being stirred up & reheated

the senate was the sauce, with a small amount of the beverage, swirled a long time, so the sips would cool off..

That's the way a guy on Cspan described it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. Yes I know that history and discussion

The times were such in America that made
the Senate necessary for the Aristocracy's acceptance
for the Constitution.


Most of my Poli Sci professors never had a clear answer
on the Senate...and the enigma that it created on representative govt.

The founders were damn aware of the British Civil War
which happened over 100 years before which was really
a battle between the two houses of Government. The House of Lords vs. The House of Commons.

[enlightenment]

25. But in the late 18th century, the House of Lords

was still a far more powerful body than it is today. The Civil War (English, not British) did impact the balance between the two Houses, but not to the extent that you are professing, I think. They still carried far more weight than the Commons until the 19th century.

[Ichingcarpenter]

29. The 19th century revolutions throughout Europe in 48 cleaned up that crap

Meanwhile the US was finally addressing the slave issue and
states right.

I still want so suggestions for the future of our senate. I think
the historical explanations are exceedingly illuminating to readers
of this conversation.

Not many Americans know the revolutionary developments in Europe from
the 1840-52. The aristocracy was confronted and it changed Europe.

The two house system is a left over from the Brits

[enlightenment]

31. Your attitude is really not conducive to discussion.

This is the second time you've made the "Not many Americans" comment - the implication being that YOU know all about it and no one else does, whether that is your intent or not. If you're going to play the know-it-all card, why not just answer your own question?

There are a number of people in this thread who are very well-versed in history and every time you fling out that comment you insult their intelligence. Why not back off a bit and clarify exactly what it is you expect from this discussion?

Leaping from century to century to toss in another 'highlight in history' (the Revolutions of 1848, in this case - the English Civil War, prior) isn't proving anything except that you apparently still have your high school textbook to hand. You may be very well versed in history and politics, but it's certainly not showing at the moment.

No one is going to deny that our bicameral system is borrowed from the British Parliament - why would they reinvent the wheel? It wasn't the Parliament that they objected to as much as the monarchy (otherwise, they would have been accusing the PM of usurpations along with King George, don't you think?)

What would you suggest we do with the Senate? Shorten their terms? Reduce their authority? Make them wear funny hats? Get rid of them completely and go with a unicameral system?

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. LOL.....

Now that whole post is a statement that reveals your tag
'enlightenment'

The ignorant are afraid to betray surprise or admiration...they think it ill manners. This was an excursus evaluation of the senate.
Hopefully from those that are well read. How empty is theory in the presence of fact. We keep half of what we think hidden away on our inside and only deliver ourselves of that remnant of it which is proper for general consumption.

This wasn't a history lesson only exercises in awareness but you took it personally.


So what do you thinK????

Does the senate function anymore or is it just an ancient house of Lords?

[kiva]

34. Please ignore my comment above -

obviously you posted this to insult other DUers rather than discuss the issue.

[imdjh]

9. No one has ever been able to explain to me the meaning of the Senate representing "the states" ...

.... as opposed to "the people".

Originally the Senators from a state were elected by that state's assembly. So if you had a Democratic majority assembly you would presumably have two Democratic senators from that state. Since we went to direct election of the Senate in whatever year that was, we've had the political oddity of a state which has a majority of one party electing a senator from the other party, often in addition to one senator of the majority party.

But the traditionalists, which are almost always Republicans arguing against fixing or getting rid of the Electoral College, are fond of pointing out that the Senate is not supposed to be a "super-House" , it's supposed to be different in character; that congressmen (colloquial for house members) represent The People, and senators represent "the state". I simply don't understand what the difference is between "the people" and "the state". It seems to me that what is actually being said is that House members are supposed to go to Congress to get whatever they can for their constituents, but that Senators are supposed to be the adults (the House of Lords) who take into account the cost to the states (back when the national budget was apportioned).

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. It's as simple as meaning that every state has the same 2 votes in the Senate

as every other state. It was supposed to be the counterbalance to raw democracy where if one man equalled one vote, than more populous states would always dominate the smaller states.

Additionally, since Senators were appointed by State legislatures, they could be assumed to have at heart the interest of the state as a whole and not just some smaller portion of the state which elected them personally.

Wingnuts and Federalists are always screaming for some reason about the 17th Amendment which created direct election to the Senate by the people of the state instead of the legislature. Not sure what their beef is about this.

[treestar]

23. The type of wingnut who opposes the federal reserve and

worries that the flags in courtrooms with fringe make it an "admiralty" court. Always found them amusing.

Maybe it's the 'states rights" types who figure non-popularly elected Senators would protect those better.

[AllentownJake]

11. The Senate was a compromise

So that states like South Carolina, Delaware and Rhode Island wouldn't have their rights trampled on by NY,PA,MA, and VA.

You have to understand at the time, the founders were doing everything they possibly could from each state declaring itself its own country.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. That is only part of it

It was also a landowner elite vs the emerging middle class,
emigrant class .

I understand that but I'm looking at the Senate now and its
function in today's soc/political environment.

I guess I'm asking is it an anarchism?

[LeftHander]

13. RIch white man club...not rich? you get plane crashed and replaced.

With a rich white man.

[SeekerBlue]

18. Nah, they're far too polite.

nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. today's senate is too small.

It makes powerful morans from AK, ND, SC, and Montana, and dilutes bigger states like NY, CA, IL, etc. While that is not bad per se, the problem is that our population has grown so much more than the size of the senate. Today, the senior senator from Illinois represents 9 MILLIONS. That's bigger than the colonies total population when we kicked the brits back across the atlantic pond. The senate has become a series of fiefdumbs, with the accent on the dumb. It needs to triple, even quadruple in size, especially in the big states.

The same goes for the house. The idea that 435 individuals (some of whom are barely sentient) can offer real representative activity on the part of their constituents is just plain crazy. With 305,000,000 people, 1000 representatives would represent 305,000 individuals, still too high, but better. 3000 representatives would be responsible for 100,000, almost doable.

Would that make a mess of congress? Of course it would, in some ways. Lobbyists would be going nuts, trying to buy off 1000 people instead of 435. 250 senators would double the chance that a person could actually see his/her senator. But would it be more representative? Yup.

[earth mom]

26. Yes because the majority of Congress is out of touch with the majority of the population.

They are serving their cronies-the rich and well connected of this country.

The rest of us can fuck off as far as they are concerned! :grr:

[SOS]

27. "The Treason of the Senate" by David Graham Phillips

He was murdered five years after the publication of his famous essay.

David Graham Phillips, "The Treason of the Senate", published in Cosmopolitan (March, 1906):

"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous: interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people, of the educated into sycophants, of the masses toward serfdom."

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. Very important piece of history- it came from a Senator fighting Corporatism

The Treason of the Senate were a series of articles in Cosmopolitan magazine by David Graham Phillips, published in February, 1906. The series is a caustic expose of the corruption of the United States Senate, particularly the corporate magnate-turned-Senator Nelson Aldrich<1> from Rhode Island. During the composition of the articles Phillips received help from newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst, who then desired to publish sensationalist stories to attract more readership of his publications.

The release of the series precipitated the passage and ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which provides the direct election of the U.S. Senators.<2> In the seven years it took to ratify the Amendment, some of the 20 Senators criticized by Phillips in the articles resigned or died. None of the 24 Senators who stood in the first direct election in 1914 were defeated. The option the Amendment allowed -- for appointment by the affected state's governor of a new senator, when a seat is vacated mid-term -- has come under criticism in 2009.<3>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treason_of_the_Senate

[dawg]

30. Senate is a drag on our democracy ...

The time it takes to pass a bill through both houses, overcome a potential filibuster in the Senate, reconcile the two bills, and then pass the reconciled bill through both houses again, fundamentally weakens the government of the United States and makes it unable to respond to crisis situations in an expedient manner. We witnessed this firsthand last year, when our elected officials sat bickering while the economy verged on the brink of collapse.

In the time of the founders, the world moved at a much slower pace, and it was a good thing to slow the gears of government. Today, however, it puts us at a major disadvantage compared to other governments that are capable of making rapid changes with a quick up or down vote.

If I had my way, I would reduce the Senate to confirming Presidential appointments, ratifying treaties, overriding vetoes, and trying impeachments. Perhaps I would also give them some authority to approve or not approve foreign military commitments over a certain length of time. That is all. The only time they would be involved with proposed legislation is when the President has vetoed it and the House has voted to override.

[Posteritatis]

35. Which other governments?

Most of the other major governments worldwide are bicameral with the same general structure - a regularly-elected lower chamber, and an upper chamber that's either appointed or elected on a slower interval - that the US has. Canada doesn't do quick up-and-down votes on issues; the United Kingdom doesn't; Russia doesn't; Japan doesn't; etc., etc., etc. There's the odd unicameral legislature out there, but there aren't many of them and it's much easier to get very sketchy laws through them.

The US senate is not particularly exceptional or terrible in that regard.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Most of the governments you speak of don't give the upper chamber substantial legislative power

The UK has the Parliament Acts which, if invoked, allows a bill to become law without consent of the House of Lords. Usually the Commons doesn't invoke the acts but rather implicitly threatens to invoke them and the House of Lords then will pass the bill.

The Canadian Senate by custom does not veto bills passed by the Commons. In France a veto by the upper chamber can be overridden by the lower chamber if there is gridlock.

[butterfly77]

32. A majority of people in...

the house and the senate,don't even know who their constieunts are they think of them as middle class and white and they don't represent who the country really is.

They are more worried about the money they will get from their constituents than the votes they may or may not get..They also think that most people aren't paying attention but they are...

A lot of people I know who never paid attention to politics are now tuned in and are ready to tear their asses up for 2010 and that includes bluedogs who think that they can play with us...

[AngryAmish]

36. How does Hunter Biden fit in to the idea of hereditary peerage?

[Ichingcarpenter]

38. Interesting question on peerage power of the Senate.

Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay. War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, the lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade. When a thing is said to be not worth refuting you may be sure that either it is flagrantly stupid - in which case all comment is superfluous - or it is something formidable, the very crux of the problem.

Shelly

I don't know the answer but I do know the question
Which is why I asked

[Ichingcarpenter]

39. How does `joe leberman fit into this equation?

Still think it is not worth a discussion?

After what happened after I wrote this post.