Saturday, December 7, 2013

No Longer Need a Senate

Now that Reid is getting away with his coup, Time Honored Traditon Ended it raises the question of why we now even need the Senate. A story often quoted to point out the differences between the House and Senate involves an argument between George Washington, who favored having two chambers of Congress and Thomas Jefferson, who believed a second chamber to be unnecessary. The story goes that the two Founders were arguing the issue while drinking coffee. Suddenly, Washington asked Jefferson, "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" "To cool it," replied Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it." From Ask.com

Senators knew this today.  So maybe now we can get rid of an expensive but  redundant  part of the government.

A commenter  challenged this post with the following: 

Jonathan Ray said..".Does the poster understand that the story shared actually supports the need for a Senate rather than against it? Just curious, because it seems otherwise in the original post.   Then in a second comment: I  am a bit confused by this post. The story from Ask.com actually provides a strong rationale for the need for a Senate while the blog post seems to indicate the opposite. What did the Senators know?"

To which Blogger responded: " Jonathan Ray,  When the founders were setting up the government, they debated even the need for two houses of congress such as the British House of Lords and the House of Commons.   They compromised by making each of them different. The Senate's purpose was to spend time giving lots of thought and debate. The other House would be filled with the hotheads who were closer to the people and could ram things through on simple majorities. When the Senate voted recently to just pass things with a simple majority without prolonged thought and debate, they became no different than the House. Therefore if the Senate is no longer serving its original function, it is an unnecessary and very  expensive redundancy."

5 comments:

Jonathan Ray said...

Does the poster understand that the story shared actually supports the need for a Senate rather than against it? Just curious, because it seems otherwise in the original post.

Jonathan Ray said...

I am a bit confused by this post. The story from Ask.com actually provides a strong rationale for the need for a Senate while the blog post seems to indicate the opposite. What did the Senators know?

Blogger said...

Jonathan Ray My post says that when the founders were setting up the government, they debated even the need for two houses of congress. They compromised by making each of them different. The Senate's purpose was to spend time giving lots of thought and debate. The other House would be filled with the hotheads who were closer to the people and could ram things through on simple majorities. When the Senate voted recently to just pass things with a simple majority without prolonged thought and debate, they became no different than the House. Therefore if the Senate is no longer serving its original function, it is an unnecessary and expensive redundancy.

Sarkazein said...

It is amazing how Reid can passionately make the statements on the floor of the Senate against the nuclear option then do it himself a few short years later and NOT be on the mainstream media's political death watch. Same with Obama and Biden.

Sarkazein said...

There has never been a President whose appointments needed more Senate scrutiny than Obama's appointments.