Should the Senate be abolished? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 11, 2024, 05:58:12 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Should the Senate be abolished? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Should the Senate be abolished?  (Read 7966 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« on: September 04, 2004, 05:17:03 AM »

Abolishing the Senate is illegal.

Even if you were to abandon every American principle and try to twist the life out of the Constitution with an amendment, EVERY state would have to ratify it. It'd still be illegal, though, even if ratified.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2004, 01:07:11 PM »

Abolishing the Senate is illegal.

Even if you were to abandon every American principle and try to twist the life out of the Constitution with an amendment, EVERY state would have to ratify it. It'd still be illegal, though, even if ratified.
Huh?
That`s absurd. How can the Constitution be illegal?
If such an amendment were ratified, it would of course be legal. Not that there's any chance of it happening.

Because it's contrary to our form of government.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2004, 04:40:32 PM »

Uh, if the Senate has less power, then each state does not have its equal representation in the Senate.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2004, 12:01:42 AM »

Uh, if the Senate has less power, then each state does not have its equal representation in the Senate.

The Constitution does not require all States to approve all changes to the Senate.  Only those changes that would cause one State to have more Senators than another.  If it did so require, then Amendment XVII would have needed all forty-eight States (now fifty States) to have approved it instead of just the thirty-seven that did so.  So long as all States have the same number of Senators, there is no violation of the equal representation clause no matter how little or how much power is given to the Senate.

No, it's a matter of representation:

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

Its say in the Senate must be equal, and that suffrage is of the nature in which the Senate holds a bicameral role.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2004, 12:53:49 PM »

Phillip, the two houses have never had equal power.  Only the Senate has the advice and consent function.  The two houses have different functions in the impeachment process.  The Represenatives have the minor right of being the only ones to introduce certain types of legislation.  As a practical matter any amendment that alters the balance of power between the House and the Senate will probably have to be proposed by a convention as it is extremely unlikely that either the ouse or Senate would pass an amendment that would reduce its own power in favor of the other.

In passing bills. But the advise and consent function is also part of its equal suffrage.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.