Should The Senate Be Abolished?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Should The Senate Be Abolished?

Post by Red » Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:36 pm

CPG Grey made a remark in one of his Q&As about how, if he had the power to make three amendments to the Constitution, he said that he would abolish the Senate's equal representation of 2 senators per state and make it proportional representation, like the House.

While this does sound like an interesting concept, I wonder if it would work as well in practice. Would the representation be equal to that of the House? Or, should we just get rid of the Senate entirely so all Congressional powers will be among one house (that might not work; it's good to have separate branches so they can check and balance each other)?

I mean, I know the original point of the two houses was to make everyone happy by having one house with proportional representation, and one with equal representation. Maybe we should increase the amount of Senators allotted to each state (even though I like the nice round 100).

Thoughts?
VOTE

Red For President
--------------------------
Blue For Vice President

2056
My Democratic Republic: https://discord.gg/ejHz43n

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:33 pm

Would be better to get rid of the presidency.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:38 pm

Jebus wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:33 pm
Would be better to get rid of the presidency.
Why?

One of the major reasons why we have a President is to have a leader during wartime; it'd be inefficient to rely on Congress to order the Military around.
VOTE

Red For President
--------------------------
Blue For Vice President

2056
My Democratic Republic: https://discord.gg/ejHz43n

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:43 pm

Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:38 pm
Jebus wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:33 pm
Would be better to get rid of the presidency.
Why?

One of the major reasons why we have a President is to have a leader during wartime; it'd be inefficient to rely on Congress to order the Military around.
Care to explain??? According to the constitution, the POTUS isn't allowed to declare wars.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:54 pm

Jebus wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:43 pm
Care to explain??? According to the constitution, the POTUS isn't allowed to declare wars.
Yes, they declare wars, they just need Congressional approval if they want to go to war.

If it's going to be a not against a sovereign nation (such as the Confederacy), they don't need a declaration.

Sure, Congress can declare wars, but there are checks and balances. We haven't had any formally declared wars since WW2.

The President has been the only one to formally declare war (which has happened five times). The President asks Congress to make a bill, which he or she would then sign.

And remember this:
Article 2 Section 2 wrote: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
The Constitution is pretty ambiguous at times, but this is pretty clear cut.

And you didn't answer my question as to why we need to get rid of the Presidency.
VOTE

Red For President
--------------------------
Blue For Vice President

2056
My Democratic Republic: https://discord.gg/ejHz43n

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 pm

Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:54 pm
you didn't answer my question as to why we need to get rid of the Presidency.
Giving too muh power to one person is bad for the U.S. and very bad for the world. Vietnam is a good example of how the US presidency fucked things up in a major way. It could get much worse than that though. The US presidency could also fuck up the world economy.

I think the question the opposite question should be asked: Why does the US need a president in 2018?
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm

Jebus wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 pm
Giving too much power to one person is bad for the U.S. and very bad for the world. Vietnam is a good example of how the US presidency fucked things up in a major way. It could get much worse than that though. The US presidency could also fuck up the world economy.
The Presidency is designed to make sure it doesn't get too carried away with power by default; remember, checks and balances.
The Congress can inhibit the passing of any Congressional Legislation he wants, and his or her executive orders are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.
The President, if they have the cooperation of both of the other branches, can basically do whatever they want, within the limits of the law and the constitution, and a lot of good can come from that. But, in order for this to happen, the President must be popular.

Look at Obama; very popular at the start of his term, with a lot of support from Congress; but when he tried to pass healthcare, he lost the House in the first midterms, until 2014 when he lost both houses, each with strong Republican Majorities, which severely weakened Obama.

And the Vietnam war was a failure (mostly on the U.S.'s part) but the President at the war's height, Lyndon B. Johnson had control of the congress and courts, and was able to pass a lot of progressive legislation that helped minorities and the poor.

As for the economy, if we have a President that promotes free trade and liberalism, the economy will strengthen/recover.

Look at what I said to PsYcHo; We need an intelligent populace to vote for intelligent people.
Jebus wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 pm
I think the question the opposite question should be asked: Why does the US need a president in 2018?
Is that a joke?
VOTE

Red For President
--------------------------
Blue For Vice President

2056
My Democratic Republic: https://discord.gg/ejHz43n

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am

Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm
The Presidency is designed to make sure it doesn't get too carried away with power by default; remember, checks and balances.
So are you saying that the POTUS isn't that powerful because there are checks and balances? How many people can you think of who are more powerful than the POTUS?
Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm
And the Vietnam war was a failure (mostly on the U.S.'s part) but the President at the war's height,
This shows a lack of knowledge about your own country's history. LBJ was informed by his generals in the mid 60s that there was no way the war could ever be won and recommended a complete withdrawal. He instead decided to escalate the war effort as he thought this would help his reelection chances.
Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm
Lyndon B. Johnson had control of the congress and courts, and was able to pass a lot of progressive legislation that helped minorities and the poor.
And how is that relevant to this discussion?
Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm
As for the economy, if we have a President that promotes free trade and liberalism, the economy will strengthen/recover.
And what if you don't?

What if the US president were to collude with the secretary of treasury to destroy the US dollar? What checks and balances would stop that?
Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm
We need an intelligent populace to vote for intelligent people.
Lol. Good luck with that. Your smartest people are not the ones making the most babies.
Jebus wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 pm
Why does the US need a president in 2018?
Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm
Is that a joke?
No. Now try answering it.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am

Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
So are you saying that the POTUS isn't that powerful because there are checks and balances? How many people can you think of who are more powerful than the POTUS?
How powerful can the President be if he or she doesn't have Congress or the Supreme Court on his or her side?
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
This shows a lack of knowledge about your own country's history.
:lol: And I guess you know so much more about it than me?

I'm not an academic historian, but I've been studying this stuff for about a year now, and your comment feels insulting and pompous. This reminds me of the flat Earth thread when teo thought he knew so much more about Physics than brimstone.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
LBJ was informed by his generals in the mid 60s that there was no way the war could ever be won and recommended a complete withdrawal. He instead decided to escalate the war effort as he thought this would help his reelection chances.
The reasons why LBJ continued the war effort aren't that simple; True, Johnson really wanted to make sure he was reelected (although new voting laws that he helped passed were likely more than enough), but you have to remember the year; this was during the Cold War, and Johnson didn't want South Vietnam to fall to Communism, like what happened with the Korean War.
Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm
Lyndon B. Johnson had control of the congress and courts, and was able to pass a lot of progressive legislation that helped minorities and the poor.
To show that The Presidency can be a force for good. The President usually has influence on who controls the other branches, depending on their job performance.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
And what if you don't?
The economy will be screwed for the time being, but it's not like it won't recover. And remember, there are other leaders other than the President.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
What if the US president were to collude with the secretary of treasury to destroy the US dollar? What checks and balances would stop that?
:shock: Do you have any idea what the President can or can not do?

The President does not have the sole power to do that. That must have Congressional approval, which would be more likely to happen if inflation is becoming an issue and single dollars are not practical. This would also be an obvious overreach of his power, which would be deemed by the Supreme Court.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
Lol. Good luck with that. Your smartest people are not the ones making the most babies.
There are things we can do to combat it, such as fixing the electoral college, and making an amendment (which the President doesn't have any part in deciding on) to allow the federal government to improve education.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
No. Now try answering it.
I assume you thought I was trying to dodge the question to which I humbly reply:
What a pointless dumbass question. ;)
VOTE

Red For President
--------------------------
Blue For Vice President

2056
My Democratic Republic: https://discord.gg/ejHz43n

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:45 pm

Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
How powerful can the President be if he or she doesn't have Congress or the Supreme Court on his or her side?
Ehm. . . Like one of the three most powerful people on the planet . . .
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
And I guess you know so much more about it than me?
I'm at least 30 years older than you so it would be strange otherwise.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
your comment feels insulting and pompous.
You are very perceptive.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
This reminds me of the flat Earth thread when teo thought he knew so much more about Physics than brimstone.
Most of the discussions I have with you feel like that.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
Johnson didn't want South Vietnam to fall to Communism, like what happened with the Korean War.
That was the whole point of the war and his generals told him he wouldn't be able to win the war so that comment means absolutely nothing.
Red wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:47 pm
Lyndon B. Johnson had control of the congress and courts, and was able to pass a lot of progressive legislation that helped minorities and the poor.
Oh, so countries without a president can't pass reforms that help the poor???
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
The President does not have the sole power to do that. That must have Congressional approval\
An executive order doesn't need congressional approval before going into effect. They can overturn it and I'm sure you know the process after that. That's why I used the USD as an example. By the time congress overturns the presidential veto the dollar could already be useless. This scenario is unlikely but possible. Either way, a simple comment from the POTUS can wreak havoc on the markets.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
There are things we can do to combat it, such as fixing the electoral college, and making an amendment (which the President doesn't have any part in deciding on) to allow the federal government to improve education.
Americans will likely get smarter in the future but so will the citizens of other first world nations (possibly at an even faster rate). This will likely improve the quality of a president style government, but since you brought it up you should explain why this style of government would benefit from higher intelligence more than a government with a broader power base.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
I assume you thought I was trying to dodge the question to which I humbly reply:
What a pointless dumbass question. ;)
Isn't this discussion about the merits of a narrow power base (like the US or Russia) vs. a wide power base (like most European countries). If so, I think it is in order for you to demonstrate how the benefits of having a president outweighs the disadvantages. I'm not sure if you are unwilling or unable to do so. My guess would be unable.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests