The Senate is seemingly becoming increasingly obsolete in the eyes in the American people as time goes on.
The upper chamber often fails to pass bills because the just refuse to get rid of the filibuster. So what’s the point?
The most notable bill being the SAVE Act, which passed through the House, but continues to stall in the Senate. All the Senators went on vacation for August Recess without passing the bill.
The Gateway Pundit spoke with a patriot in North Carolina, Thomas Jacobs, who hopes to write out the frustrations the American people have with the upper chamber.
Jacobs suggested instead of getting rid of the filibuster, we should just “Nuke the Senate,” which led to concerned comments about repelling the 17th amendment, which established that each state will have two Senators.
Jacobs spoke to TGP after he read some of these concerns about repealing the 17th.
“There were many comments about repealing the 17th Amendment. A few comments questioned why that was not referenced in the article. I am not in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, at least for now. The reason is simple: I would rather have the American people elect their representatives rather than a legislature of elected politicians selecting my representative. The Senate is a small sample of that scenario. Senator Thune was not elected by the people to serve as Majority Leader. I do not know anyone who would vote for him,” Jacobs told TGP.
“The sad part is that I am old enough to remember a United States Senate where the words were on another level of oratory and rhetorical speech. I remember a Senate that respected different points of view and actually was a deliberative body. Today, Congress is a place where shouting matches regularly occur, including the use of insults and foul language. When you watch any congressional hearing, witnesses are battered, verbally abused, and interrupted more often than not, while not being allowed to answer questions.”
The insults and foul language has turned the Senate into a high-school-like setting.
“We used to call our elected representatives ‘the Honorable _____.’ They lost that title because they do not deserve it. Americans deserve better. If we do not demand better, we deserve the status quo.”
Jacobs suggested reducing the size of the committees in the Senate and called for a Convention of States, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution.
“Here are some possible solutions: Cut the size of all Committees to half. That alone would give more time for Q&A. Mute all microphones other than the person speaking. I realize this opens the opportunity for lengthy answers that do not answer the question. The Committee Chairman would be responsible for intervening and instructing the witness to answer the question,” Jacobs told TGP.
“The Founding Fathers pledged their lives and their fortunes to establish this nation. We need to return to our founding documents. It is the God-given wisdom of our Founding Fathers in writing those documents that have preserved this nation for 250 years. And within those founding documents, they gave the American people the ability to circumvent an elitist, entitled, and underperforming Congress. The Convention of States is one of the most brilliant and most overlooked ideas to be included in our Constitution.”
Jacobs points to the original vision of the Founding Fathers on why he believes a Convention of States would be necessary.
“The Founders could not and did not envision the concept of a professional politician, which is what we have today. Money and power are human drivers. Always have been, always will be. I do think they had a great understanding of human nature. I think that is the reason they included the Convention of States as a safeguard against a recalcitrant Congress,” Jacobs told TGP.
“I think the only way a Convention of States would work would be if there were a limit to the number of topics to be discussed. Four topics would be enough. I would suggest the Save America Act, term limits on Congress while also reducing the Senate’s tenure from six years to four years, limiting the Supreme Court to nine justices, and a Balanced Budget Amendment. Any other topic would be declared null and void, or out of bounds.”
Jacobs also argues that the size of the Supreme Court should be reduced, which contrasts to what National Democrats are trying to do, which is unconstitutionally pack the court:
“The Save America Act has an 80/20 ratio for passing by the American people. The idea of reducing the Senate’s term and term limits was discussed in the previous article. Supreme Court should have a limited number of Justices. Once one expands the number, it sets the precedent to expand the lower courts until the desired outcome, control of the Judiciary, is reached. (I am aware that the blue states will not want to pass that amendment. It is just like the filibuster situation. The Democrats have already said they will try to pack the court. President Trump should simply state that if the amendment does not pass, he will pack the court with conservative justices now. It is the political version of the Golden Rule: Do unto others before they do unto you.)”
Jacobs ends the conversation by tapping into some of the shared frustrations with the upper chamber that are on the rise with the American people such as the National Debt, balancing the budget, and government shutdowns.
“The Balanced-Budget Amendment is long overdue. This nation is $40 trillion in debt. This nation borrows money to give away. One of the largest and fastest-growing areas of the budget is interest on the debt. No more government shutdowns. No more Continuing Resolutions. Congress will never pass such an amendment because it is not their money that they are spending,” Jacobs told TGP.
“Assuming that a Convention was called, and three or four items were presented and possibly passed, the final act of the Convention would be to propose a list of items for future conventions. Given that a Convention of States had been called and produced positive results of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, Congress would have two options: (1) face the realization that other Conventions could be called and Congress would become obsolete over time; (2) Congress could return to representing and serving their constituents, their states, and their country. It would be their choice. If they are already approaching irrelevance, then obsolescence is not far behind.”
As the Senate continues to fail to do their job, while taking extended breaks from work during August Recess and getting paid the same six figure salary, it’s no wonder why the general public is frustrated.
Patriots like Jacobs, are tired of seeing this sort of thing happen. Should we “Nuke the Senate?” Is a Convention of States needed? Has the Senate drifted too far from the Founders original principles?
“Call a Convention of States, select the topics, and stay disciplined, televise the whole thing nationally, and return the nation to the Founders’ God-given wisdom.”
The post EXCLUSIVE – Should We Rethink The Senate’s Role In Government? – Is A Convention Of States Necessary To Decide The Future Of The Senate? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
