In the past couple of weeks since I came to this place, a bunch of you have been whining about "write something progressive, wah wah wah." So, in the spirit of cooperation, I have something here that will shut you up and, at the same time, get you talking.
The topic: Integrate the United States House of Representives and the United State Senate into one legislative body.
The reason: Throughout the years of this country's existance, the distinction between the two houses of Congress have steadly blurred. It started in earnest when the 17th Amendment was passed. Usually, senators were chosen by the states to represent the legislatures. After that amendment, the senators were chosen by direct election of the citizen, exactly like the House Representatives. After this event, the distinctions continued to disappear. The Senate increased their activity in amending spending bills. The Constitution grants the House to decide spending bills, but allows the Senate to amend them. More and more, the Senate does more than amend the bill. The Senate can amend the bill so much that it no longer looks like the original bill. They act much like the House in this regard. The Senate's power to declare war has not been used since WWII, allowing the president to engage in military actions without a declaration. The only Senate power that they continue to use regulary is the confirmation of executive appointments.
The the Founders seperated the two Houses to appease problems in their era. However, this era is different. We don't really require the seperation of the Houses. If we combined them, legislation would be decided on much faster and more effectively.
Now there's an interesting point, and admittedly, something that hadn't crossed my mind before. And you bring up very solid points. The distinctions between the functions of the two bodies seem to be more traditional than practical.
However, the one question I do have is the one that the Founding Fathers had originally, and is partially why we have a bicameral legislature in the first place: would a single body use equal or proportional representation from all of the states? I can assure you that although Wyoming would jump for joy at a purely equal legislature, California wouldn't be very agreeable, and the opposite for a proportional system. It seems like such a mundane concept now, but no state would want to give up whichever advantage it had in Congress.
It would indeed be difficult to answer the representation question if the Congress was integrated. But, since the Senate is more in control of the people as a nation rather than people as a state, I don't think it would be as troublesome as you might think.
Of course, since this integration would require a constitutional amendment, it would never be passed, since it must be passed by state conventions, and they would never agree to that.
Well said. It would be a difficult venture.
Here's a story that may relate to this blog. There was much internal strife among the Montana state legislature this year. The public and local newsapapers complained about efficiency, laying the blaim on political squabling, because there was a 51-49 split among the parties.
Montana's governor was asked at my school for his opinion on the matter and what the public could do to ensure a more efficient system in the following year. I'll never forget what he said. To poorly paraphrase, he said to be careful for what you wish for. THERE'S A REASON why politics and policy formation is such a long process, and messy. Efficiency is oftentimes in dire want, but would not be beneficial to society. I think he said that last year's legislature was quite the paradox--he didn't expect the same thing this year.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I'll have to agree with Jei on this one. That and the stability that a bicameral house provides.
Right now, the Democrats control both houses. However, this isn't always the case. If it were, especially if the same party controlled the presidency, that party's agenda would face no resistance in getting enacted, meaning that about half the people would be well served and the other half would be enraged. With the current system, some progressive individual policies get through when they are accepted by both parties, but excessive shifts in one direction are pretty rare, so on the whole we have a government than can represent most of its people.
If your contemplating the integration of both houses of Congress, the amount of representation a given state has may or may not be the primary concern. I would argue that, while representation is most certainly important and was the issue which provided the basis for the Connecticut Compromise which created both houses of Congress, there is another issue which is, at the very least, equally important, one which Madison, in part, wrote about in Federalist No. 51: checks and balances.
The Framers established three separate branches of government with the intention of delegating responsibility amongst three different groups so that power would not be concentrated, as it is currently in the UK (with really one house, the House of Commons, which has power) and was, to a large extent, then, and would instead be separated. So, too, did the Framers establish a bicameral legislature to preserve checks and balances between the two houses of the legislature so that no one body would have absolute power over legislation. Furthermore, each house is given certain responsibilities that only it can carry - such as the Senate being tasked with ratifying treaties, bills concerning tax increases beginning in the House, and the House trying the President for impeachment while the Senate convicts.
The goal was, just as with the separate branches of government, to prevent against the concentration of legislative power. In doing so, one house of Congress would not be able to simply impeach the President, for instance, without having a check on the other side to ensure that the impeachment is valid. Legislation is slowed, yes, but that was the intention of the Founders; were there to be one house which passed all the laws with expediency, then there would be only one check on whether or not that legislation should, in fact, be the law of the land, namely the President's veto power, and if the unicameral legislature had the support needed to override the veto, it could do so at its will with no check on that power. And with the important role that the legislature provides, combining the two houses would be a catastrophe.
As Madison said in Federalist No. 51, "In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan
All very true. I don't personally advocate the integration of the legislature. I chose this topic because, though it doesn't have my personal support, it still has some worth to talk about.
Sure, I suppose it is an interesting debate, but I don't really see it as something that people are really trying to push for, and if they are, well, I've gotta say that it's really quite silly, lol. I would not want to vest so much power in a single legislative body; I think the very notion would be detrimental to American-style republicanism, without a doubt.
"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan
I doubt the majority of people would try to push for it. Then again, the majority of people probably have never considered it, either. That's why I wanted to bring it up.
No matter how much power you have if you divide it and put it back together again someone will be fascinated.
Glutenously yours,
Pasta Rasta
Fascinated?
...ok. I'll pretend you made sense and not make fun of you.