• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

History is scary. The present even scarier....

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Then... (1911 - 1924)


Representative Victor L. Berger of Wisconsin and Socialist Party of America Members Bertha Hale White and Eugene V. Debs, photograph by the National Photo Company, December 13, 1924


A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Dissolve the United States Senate | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives


Now..

(2021)

Abolish the Senate


So my questions starts out with this....

Is the senate a nessessary institution?

What would it be like if there was no senate anymore?

Would the US be better off? Or would it be worse off?
 
Last edited:

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
We need all the checks and balances we can get, I think, the way things are now.

One thing to note is if the Senate is abolished, the House would probably have the full power of impeaching a President, and could probably do it on a simple majority vote.

In a certain way, this could very well end up where the House has most of the power.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
They want pure democracy and the Senate empowers the states. So of course they want to get rid of it so they can outvote everyone else. Pure democracy is a failed system. It's two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

So what would result in a pure democracy? It would be Urbanites vs. ruralists. The Urbanites would dominate and rule over the ruralists. That would be very bad. But it is what certain people want to happen in this country. They don't want fairness. They would rather dominate and rule by force. By the way I am myself an Urbanite but I have to stick up for the ruralist. They're the ones making everyone's food. So let's give them credit. We can't just have entitled, self important city dwellers dominating politics and deciding policies for areas of the country that have completely different needs and wants.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
As I understand it the Founding Fathers were mixed on whether to create a Senate. The way the population has settled in certain states has made conservatives overly represented to make decisions on policy and law.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
We need all the checks and balances we can get, I think, the way things are now.

One thing to note is if the Senate is abolished, the House would probably have the full power of impeaching a President, and could probably do it on a simple majority vote.

In a certain way, this could very well end up where the House has most of the power.
And then have to make sure the House accurately represents the population of the states. gerrymandering on both sides needs to be eliminated. It could be done if the whole state votes for who they want to represent them. For example democrats and republicans and independents can run their candidates in the state. Voters select who they like the best of that pool. Then an election is done from this pool who they prefer as democrats and who they prefer as republicans. And the voters can vote their political affiliation. If it is 55% republicans and 45% democrat, then the divide of representation falls into that proportion and the pool of representatives are selected on their ranking by voters.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
We'd probably basically be back to where we were before the People voted on the Senate (it was elected by the House back then).
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
We'd probably basically be back to where we were before the People voted on the Senate (it was elected by the House back then).
Absolutely! Let's yearn for that wondrous democracy where the Senate was chose by the House, where the House was chosen by a white, male, propertied electorate, where the Blacks were enslaved, and where the Native Americans were cruelly and systematically marginalized.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Absolutely! Let's yearn for that wondrous democracy where the Senate was chose by the House, where the House was chosen by a white, male, propertied electorate, where the Blacks were enslaved, and where the Native Americans were cruelly and systematically marginalized.
I truly believe these so-called "Original Intent" adherents haven't really thought out their position well, because going by the original intent is to inherently impede democracy and go backwards.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
5e2tx9.jpg
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member

I would agree that 'present day is even scarier' but we are forewarned at Luke 21:28; 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Jesus as the figurative ' stone ' found at Daniel 2:44-35 will bring an end to all that needs to be abolished.
Jesus, as King of God's Kingdom for a thousand years (1 Corinthians 15:24-26) will govern from Heaven over Earth.
Thus, Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Absolutely! Let's yearn for that wondrous democracy where the Senate was chose by the House, where the House was chosen by a white, male, propertied electorate, where the Blacks were enslaved, and where the Native Americans were cruelly and systematically marginalized.
Your ^ above ^ post reminds me of the words found at Ecclesiastes 10:7.
'Don't say the former days were better', and Jesus agrees at Luke 9:62.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Your ^ above ^ post reminds me of the words found at Ecclesiastes 10:7, ...
Or 7:10.

... and Jesus agrees at Luke 9:62.
A couple of points.

Re Luke:

Most modern scholars agree that the main sources used for Luke were a), the Gospel of Mark, b), a hypothetical sayings collection called the Q source, and c), material found in no other gospels, often referred to as the L (for Luke) source.[7] The author is anonymous;[8] the traditional view that it was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, is still occasionally put forward, but the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.[9][10] The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[11]


Re Ecclesiastes 7:10 vs Luke 9:62:
  1. Addressing Ecclesiastes, Rashi notes: "Do not wonder about the goodness that was bestowed upon the righteous men of yore, such as the generation of the wilderness, the generation of Yehoshua and the generation of Dovid. For everything depends upon the merit of the generations."

  2. Addressing Luke 9:62: Bible.org/netbible notes: "Jesus warns that excessive concern for family ties (looks back) will make the kingdom a lesser priority, which is not appropriate for discipleship. The image is graphic, for who can plow straight ahead toward a goal while looking back? Discipleship cannot be double-minded."
Rather than suggesting that "Jesus agrees at Luke 9:62," these commentaries would suggest that the two verses above have little if anything to do with one another.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
The senate is vital. Great harm was done by moving it to direct vote of the people vs the state assembly. This allowed them to bride people directly. We’re as before they were to represent the state and selling out state rights wold get them busted fast. This puts the entire system out of balance. Massive debt overreacting fed power etc. would have been better held in check by the original senate system.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
I truly believe these so-called "Original Intent" adherents haven't really thought out their position well, because going by the original intent is to inherently impede democracy and go backwards.
The USA is not a democracy. Until you understand that it’s really hard to see the beauty of the constitution.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The USA is not a democracy. Until you understand that it’s really hard to see the beauty of the constitution.
Trying to say America isn't a democracy is splitting hairs. Yes, the Constitution gave a mixed system, but it's still democracy (technically a liberal democracy) and we've made it more democratic since the Constitution was ratified.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The senate is vital. Great harm was done by moving it to direct vote of the people vs the state assembly. This allowed them to bride people directly. We’re as before they were to represent the state and selling out state rights wold get them busted fast. This puts the entire system out of balance. Massive debt overreacting fed power etc. would have been better held in check by the original senate system.
How can it possibly be any better to have elected party officials elect other party officials to another government office? All that does is remove a check and balance that has been added and ensures whoever wins the House will win the Senate, amd even fewer people will have representation.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
How can it possibly be any better to have elected party officials elect other party officials to another government office? All that does is remove a check and balance that has been added and ensures whoever wins the House will win the Senate, amd even fewer people will have representation.
The house represents the people the senate the state. Each state is an independent nation. They entered an agreement for mutual defense, trade and a few other details. By having the senate elected directly the sates lost their seat at the table. Side that time we saw a massive expansion of federal overreach.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Trying to say America isn't a democracy is splitting hairs. Yes, the Constitution gave a mixed system, but it's still democracy (technically a liberal democracy) and we've made it more democratic since the Constitution was ratified.
No it’s a vita difference. In a democracy you have no rights. 50%+1 rules the day. All minority groups are apt to be abused. In a republic the law overrules short sighted emotional reactions.
In a democracy after 9/11 Islam might have well been banned. In a republic such actions are forbidden even if 80% want it.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
No it’s a vita difference. In a democracy you have no rights. 50%+1 rules the day. All minority groups are apt to be abused. In a republic the law overrules short sighted emotional reactions.
In a democracy after 9/11 Islam might have well been banned. In a republic such actions are forbidden even if 80% want it.
America is a democratic republic. This is apparent in the Constitution. In a modern, generalized sense it is one the many Western Liberal Democracies.
Pure democracy is mob rule, but in real life purities are an idea and not reality (unless it involves something like chemistry), especially in politics and society.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The house represents the people the senate the state. Each state is an independent nation. They entered an agreement for mutual defense, trade and a few other details. By having the senate elected directly the sates lost their seat at the table. Side that time we saw a massive expansion of federal overreach.
Each state isn't an independent nation. America even fought a civil war about 160 years ago to preserve the Union of the many states.
And the states didn't lose their seat. Each state still gets two senators. They are just now elected by the People instead of the House.
Politicians electing themselves should not happen. If anything the Senate could stay as is while the House is reformed to have proportionate representation to give representation to more people, because about 260 years ago "no taxation without representation" was a rally cry for a war that was eventually fought.
 
Top