[EM] Re: Democratizing the Senate

[Alex Small]

Joe-

I like your response.

> First, bicameralism has sometimes saved USA federal laws from being
> carried  away unicamerally by fads and self-serving excess.  Right now,

I believe Nader said, when asked about the official Green Party goal of
abolishing the Senate, that with all of the bad laws being passed he'd
prefer two chances to defeat them, not one.  I concur.

Indeed, I'd like to see the Constitution amended to make the Senate unable
to initiate bills, only amend and/or reject them (but not amendments
allocating $, to limit pork-barrel spending).  Politicians like to exercise
their power as much as possible.  If empowered to initiate bills they will
do so with glee.  If empowered to scrutinize and reject the ever-increasing
heap of regulations and spending they will do so as much as possible.

>  However, constitutionally the USA is a federation - to be sure a
>  fairly tight federation - of states.

This is a non-trivial point.  Some right-wingers point to it as sacred
scripture, not to be questioned.  For me, it's a provision so hard-wired
into the Constitution that it can only be reformed, not eliminated.  It
isn't sacred, but it is (alas) non-negotiable.  We can rant all we like
about war, evil, doom, Lincoln, tyrannical minorities, etc., but let's not
make the best the enemy of the good.

If a proposal partially ameliorates the gross inequities of the Senate
without creating new inequities it should be embraced, not criticized for
keeping the inequities.  It isn't the fault of the proposal that the
inequities remain, it's the fault of the Constitution which constrains the
proposal.

Alex

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em