Time for another Bold New Idea.
It has to do with the Senate of the United States, that so-called gentlemen’s club and greatest deliberative body in the history of the world. Of late, however, very few Senators have behaved as gentlemen, more like louts, in my humble opinion, and the body has degenerated into political squabbling. The majority party has acted more like a cheerleader for the president of the United States than as a separate branch of government, and the minority party has settled into the role of spoilers.
Not that the Senate hasn’t been a hotbed of contention in the past. Throughout its history, it most certainly has been, more than once, to the point of brawling on the Senate floor. But the present incarnation would put those previous incarnations to shame for its lack of constitutionally-mandated duties. Let us examine what the Senate is supposed to do.
The Founding Fathers created the upper chamber to represent the collective interests of the states wherein senators were elected as a counterpoint to the House of Representatives which deals with the interests of individuals. Most of the Founders viewed the House as a “mob” and desired a body to provide more reasoned opinions. Originally, senators were chosen by their state legislatures, i.e. the majority party. The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of senators without regard to the political make-up of the state legislature. The Seventeenth provided for temporary appointments by state governors or for special elections in cases of death or resignation.
The Senate has three unique functions. One, it tries impeachments of executive and judicial officers (Article 1, Section 3, paragraph 6). Two, it gives advice and consent to the president to make treaties and to confirm the president’s nominees to the executive and judicial branches (Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 1). And three, it adheres to a 60-vote threshold for passage of legislation and provides for a filibuster in order to extend debate. Otherwise, it proposes legislation, except for revenue bills which is the unique function of the House, and/or concurs/rejects legislation from the House (Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 1).
Many years ago, I read an essay by a constitutional scholar who advocated a repeal of the Seventeenth, in essence returning to the Founders’ original intent. I clipped that essay and filed it away for future reference. Unfortunately, during one of my many changes of residence, I discovered that I could not possibly take everything with me; and so I emptied out my filing cabinet, including that essay. I have forgotten the reasons the scholar gave for repealing the amendment and therefore must substitute my own reasons because I did agree with him.
Popular election of senators reduces the Senate to no more than a repetition of the House, those three unique functions notwithstanding. The Senate essentially has the same committees (albeit with slightly different names) as the House, and it deliberates in essentially the same fashion. Redundancy in government is inefficient, wasteful, time-consuming, and expensive. The filibuster, in my humble opinion, has been the epitome of uselessness; it has too often been used to wear down the opposition and force the same to concede the point against its better judgment. Finally, senatorial elections are unnecessarily expensive. Previously, a candidate had only to argue his/her case to a limited audience; now, (s)he must convince the whole state.
Right now, dear reader, you are probably thinking, “Hey, Chas, that ain’t no Bold New Idea. It ain’t even your idea.”
Well, sir/madam, although I had supported the repeal of the Seventeenth then, I now have gone quite beyond that point. For the reasons I have listed above, I think the constitutional amendment which should be introduced, passed, and ratified will abolish the U.S. Senate altogether. Consider: ending the drain on the U.S. Treasury of the expense of maintaining a bicameral legislature. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, and it hasn’t been the worse for it. Consider: transferring the Senate’s unique functions to the appropriate House committees. Our representatives have the ear of We the People much more than senators do and therefore can make more democratic decisions.
Radical? You bet! Necessary? Absolutely!
Just a thought.