Whatever happened to this idea?

[136or142]

I commented on how useful something like this might be in light of 'fake news' and the power of moneyed lobbyists.  I was not aware it was an old idea.  The Canadian government under Justin Trudeau with his reforms to the Senate (and possibly in the U.K as well may be moving towards something like this.)

This is from the book 'The Great Republic, A History of the American People' Volume 1

Page 209 (third editon)

"In light of what would happen in the coming decade, the Revolutionaries confidence in 1776 in their representative legislatures was remarkable.  Except for some dissatisfied Tories, few people expected these state legislatures to become tyrannical - in the Whig theory of politics, it did not seem possible for the people to tyrannize over themselves. Of course the people were apt to be rowdy or impatient; hence the republics needed not only governors, but also upper houses in the legislature to counterbalance the popular lower houses of representatives.    All the states except Pennsylvania, Georgia and the new state of Vermont therefore provided for upper houses, or senates, the designation taken from Roman history.  The senators in these bicameral (or two chamber) state legislatures were not to be a legally defined nobility but the wisest and best members of society, who would revise and correct the well-intentioned but often careless measures of the people represented in the lower houses.

[SteveRogers]

I have no doubt that there are more than a few senators who believe themselves to be the wisest and best members of society.

[136or142]

I have no doubt that there are more than a few senators who believe themselves to be the wisest and best members of society.

Even state senators?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Wait- you think it's possible to determine who the wisest and best are!?

[SteveRogers]

Yeah, can you clarify what your actual idea is?

[136or142]

Yeah, can you clarify what your actual idea is?

It's not my idea, it's a quote from the textbook I was reading. But, as far as I could tell, the idea was adapted from the British House of Lords but would have meant for the states that an independent commission (either put into place by the Governor or the state house) would appoint 'distinguished citizens' to the state senate who would not be subject to facing elections.

The exact powers this appointed state senate would have was not spelled out, but I gather it was meant to provide a sort of legislative review of state house legislation in much the same way that courts provide judicial review.  (The concept of judicial review was no where near as established in the 1700s as it is now.)  This could also be seen as being similar to the veto that governors have now, but the governors were very weak at that time and at present a governor's veto is often a result of their craven political instincts which presumably this body, not having to face elections, would have been above.

[Gary J]

The modern theory of the House of Lords is that it is a gathering of the "great and the good", presumably the notable people selected as Lords temporal and the Church of England bishops who become Lords spiritual.
 
It can ask the House of  Commons to think again on legislation, but except for legislation to extend the term of a Parliament, the Commons view will eventually prevail if it passes the same law in two successive sessions of Parliament (a session usually being about a year long). The Lords have less power to delay money bills.

Normally the Lords perform a valuable function in carrying out a more detailed scrutiny of bills than the Commons do. A lot of detailed amendments improve legislation and are usually not very politically controversial. Because of its composition there are more likely to be experts in the membership on any subject dealt with, than in the elected chamber.

[136or142]

The modern theory of the House of Lords is that it is a gathering of the "great and the good", presumably the notable people selected as Lords temporal and the Church of England bishops who become Lords spiritual.
 
It can ask the House of  Commons to think again on legislation, but except for legislation to extend the term of a Parliament, the Commons view will eventually prevail if it passes the same law in two successive sessions of Parliament (a session usually being about a year long). The Lords have less power to delay money bills.

Normally the Lords perform a valuable function in carrying out a more detailed scrutiny of bills than the Commons do. A lot of detailed amendments improve legislation and are usually not very politically controversial. Because of its composition there are more likely to be experts in the membership on any subject dealt with, than in the elected chamber.

Thank you.

I was wondering though if anybody was familiar that at one time in American history the U.S States were considering adopting this modern idea of the British House of Lords rather than the elected state senates that they ended up with.

And, if so, why this concept was dropped in favor of the elected state senates.