The Senate

[jhaas32221]

The Constitution was amended in regards to the Senate. It use to be the State's check on the Federal Government, but who cares about federalism anymore?

[onomatoidea]

..It is Senate's fault that they are so corrupted, but that is why there are certain precautions and why we can vote them in and out...in an off-year election this year!

[onomatoidea]

The Senate is supposed to be this screwed up. Doesn't mean that when it looks this bad, we have to start over and improve it. It is supposed to be extremely hard to do something in Senate. It is with the media now we know of it a lot faster in than in Benjamin Franklin's time. I don't think they ever imaged communication this fast.

[rdsoxs86]

* correction: so why isn't it like that in the Senate

[rdsoxs86]

Well thats going back to the Great Compermise of 1787. A small state like New Jersey or Connecticut has fewer Representatives and is densely populated so they need to two senators. What I don't like is the filibuster proof system of having 60 votes. It should be our right to tell the minority party f*ck you we're doin' it anyway. It doesn't take 60% of the votes to elect a president (if under popular vote), so why is it like that in the Senate.

[link48010]

Senate election procedure should be reformed, and it should be reduced in power below the House which more accurately represents the people of the US. So basically I agree with you. Not to mention, the filibuster was never intended to be used int he way it is today.

[OrMush]

nice

[DJK1726]

I'd reform both houses and do away with statewide races. House reps. would represent constituents on an approx. 1:300K ratio (1,000+ reps.), and Senators would represent no more than 3 mil, or 10x that of a House rep. States less than 6 mil would continue to elect 2 (About 135 total). I'd cut states with more than 6 million people into separate senatorial districts. Statewide races are a relic of frontier days with less cultural and economic diversity within one state than at present.

[DJK1726]

This idea borrows from Prof. Larry Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution, which I'd recommend to anyone interested in giving the Constitution a face lift and safeguarding its integrity in the face of today's challenges. Yeah, some checks on the people should be preserved, but the current checks take into account a 50% illiterate electorate. We simply do not live in those times anymore, and these checks are too elitist.

[kirby4d]

The cloture rules are not in the constitution. Technically any 51 members or 50+VP can do wahetever the hell they want. The problem is that it's political suicide.

[collegeguysk10]

hell yea man. you're pretty hot too

[ticket88]

Nice video. FYI: When you say "All I'm saying is..." you weaken the impact of the preceding content.

[MOKandRIFF]

dude. amen.

[TheAmericanPirate]

An upgrade would consist of repealing the 17th Amendment. The Senate SHOULD be chosen by the state legislatures. Electing senators by popular vote breaks the system.

[MoralityVirtue2]

Agreed.

[Jamandell]

Very well said James!

[britethorn]

I say let the Democrats bring a Health Care Bill up for a vote and watch and see how long the Republicans can keep a filibuster going.  I bet they'd crack within a week or two.

[BenjiAYOU]

The rules of the senate guarantee a strong democracy. And the responsibility lies in us and the President to debate the issues and move public opinion. The wrong thing to do here would be to act as social architects and change the rules to feat the agenda.

[BenjiAYOU]

Now many liberals are angry that legislation is so slow to pass congress because of the senate, however, we don't have to go too much into history to find that the amendment of flag burning could have easily pass the U.S. house of representatives under the Bush administration. But it didn't got started because they simply didn't have the votes on the senate.

[BenjiAYOU]

The example you mention it is, indeed, detestable. But I have confidence that the people of Alabama will see such attitudes as unpatriotic and will judge Senator Richard Shelby accordingly. Now, think of an opposite example. Delaware has two senators and 1 U.S representative. If the rules were different California would have 52 times more power than Delaware. That is not to say that California probably contributes 52 times more to the development of the U.S, but the harmony will be lost.

[BenjiAYOU]

The U.S house of representatives moves in the direction of what's popular not necessarily what is right. They need to be in a constant camping; they need to be populists most of the time. They represent the people equally. But the senate's mission is different. It secures harmony between states with enormous populations like California and New York and Alaska and Hawaii. It gives equal standing in the public forum to the voices of states with small populations.

[BenjiAYOU]

I could not disagree more!! I know, I understand, and I even feel the public outrage towards this body at a time when action is needed. But just because a bill is really hard to pass in the senate doesn't mean the rules of the senate are wrong. If anything, those rules secure the fact that comprise needs to be reached. They secure dialog, argument, debate, and discussion.

[kuni45]

The united states needs to learn2republic again

[shermantree]

I'm with you. If there is anything that this past decade has taught me is that we need to update the mandates of all three branches of the government, and maybe even officially declare the bureaucracy as the fourth branch with its own separate mandate.

[xleax]

What is the alternative, though?

[sweetheart9060]

well said!

[MooseOfReason]

Liberals weren't hating the filibuster back when Bush was asking for more money for the Iraq War.

[B4TT3RY]

democratics aren't the ones who have abused the powers of filibuster. Take a look at the statistics and you'll see that republicans have used the filibuster three times the usual rate in order to obstruct any change.

[MooseOfReason]

B4TT3RY, Do yo suggest getting rid of it or keeping it?

[B4TT3RY]

I'm not of the particular belief that the filibuster must either stay as-is or be rid of. There needs to be something done to prevent it from being massively abused as it is now. In reality, having a Senate that respects the filibuster as simply an option and not a requirement would be all we need but that's not going to happen.

[dcmacnut]

Until 1917 one senator could hold up things. Without the filibuster, we would have been handed a lot more crap out of the GOP Congress/Bush hegemony the last 8 years. That said, it's assinine the way the GOP is abusing the filibuster today. I say keep the filibuster for final bill passage, but get rid of this "cloture vote on the motion to proceed" nonsense. The filibuster was and is meant to encourage and support debate, not avoid it.

[karasoth]

@dcmacnut

The point of the senate is to slow things down. The point of the house is to be responsive to the people.

The filibuster is a vital part of keeping our political process from over heating.

[B4TT3RY]

"The point of the senate is to slow things down" lol, where did you get this from? As far as I understood, the point of the senate was to ensure equal representation from each state.

[karasoth]

Try taking a civics class or read the federalist papers.

[B4TT3RY]

You insult my intelligence and provide no backup for your claims. Could it be because you're wrong? I'd think so.

[karasoth]

I did

go read the federalist papers. Its not very hard to find it

[dcmacnut]

Don't get me wrong. I used to work for the Senate and support the filibuster as a central right of the minority. To paraphrase the Federalist Papers, the Senate is the "saucer" to cool down the legislative process. People tend to forget that until 1917, the cloture vote didn't exist to cut off debate. However, filibustering EVERY vote, including procedural motions, is going beyond "cooling" the process to stopping it dead in its tracks. All I'm saying is there has to be a happy medium.

[karasoth]

The Filibustering of every debate and motion and other nonsense is a biproduct of the stupidity and incompetence of the senate leadership we've had since Lott left office

[dcmacnut]

Amen. Lott believed in getting stuff done rather than all this partisan sniping. Frist ran the Senate into the ground by trying to turn it into another House.

[karasoth]

Have you never taken a class on American History and Civics? If you haven't then you might not find the Senate a sensible institution. But those of us who paid attention in US History and American Government class in HS know why the senate works the way it does and we like it that way

[DylanSwift]

seriously, kotecki. go back to school! :$

[lstdy]

I think the senate is a good idea. Un-checked rule of the majority means that CA could run over WY and trample its rights. With this system, CA doesn't take WY's rights because WY has the power to stand up to CA. Besides, the less government does, the better, right?

Yeah, that one senator is a jerk. But we would not have him as a product of our system if we didn't have an entitlements system int he first place. He's minor, compared to the rest of the money grabbers. Can you spell PORK?

[DylanSwift]

but what about all the people in california who need relief from their health insurance premiums, rising college tuitions, and facing foreclosure due to a dismal real estate industry?

under our current system, one senator from say connecticut is allowed to deny them the aid these serious problems demand now. and according to the constitution: it's completely fair. but according to me, a california student, it's damn-near criminal.

[B4TT3RY]

Sorry to say but you won't be getting an upgrade anytime soon, those people get paid too well to admit their positions in power may not be necessary. I'd have less quarrels with the senate if they rid of the filibuster. I'm willing to bet money that, if study were to be done gauging partisanship in the senate, you'd see a significant increase in it's abundance following the filibuster's implementation.

[karasoth]

@B4TT3RY

You mean the founding of the Senate? The Filibuster has been with the senate since Jefferson's rules

[B4TT3RY]

Um, the first tims the filibuster was used was in 1837 and previous to that was only a theoretical option.

[karasoth]

That my friend is irrelevant. Also to further make your point less relevant we are now on Political party system 4 or 5. In 1837 they were on Political party system 2 So that analysis you present further fails

[B4TT3RY]

How is that irrelevant? You can see via online statistics (google it) that with the increase of political powers and partisanship comes an overreaching increase of the abuse of the filibuster. The filibuster has been around much longer than the founding of the Senate, so your point doesn't make sense.

[karasoth]

#1) Its irrelevant that it was first used in 1837. The fact is its been part of the senate since day 1 essentially

#2) Partisanship is a byproduct of ideologically driven parties. We haven't had those until the 1970s... so... the fact that those filibusters occurred before the parties were ideologically driven makes your partisan point meaningless

[B4TT3RY]

1) Like I said, the filibuster has been around since before the senate's conception. However, it wasn't first used until 1837 and since then wasn't used very often until the 1900's. This is very relevant.

2) If you look at the statistics, you'll see that the use of the filibuster increases dramatically around 1970. Why is that? Couldn't be because of the rise of partisanship

[govols1199]

While you may be right....how do you suggest the overhaul occur? and what about the supreme court? any thoughts

[bbqdhamster]

lol wow, screw healthcare, let's change the constitution. Why bring up your distaste for the senate *now*?

[karasoth]

@bbqdhamster

Because it serves his political agenda now .... DUH

[bbqdhamster]

Obviously that's the answer I was looking for, I just wanted it from him, and maybe what his specific agenda was... duh.

[B4TT3RY]

Because there isn't much point in debating something that isn't currently causing problems. Now that is it causing problems, I only see it as reasonable to be open to debate