Episode 19 Show Notes- Implications of Transforming the Structure of the Senate

Episode Description

As Professor Giordano continues to call out those who want to remake America and destroy our institutions, this week, he provides an impeachment update, discusses Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), and he takes on those calling to reform the Senate. Rather than explain why the Senate was created and operates the way it does, the advocacy news media cheerleads this effort and fails to do their job. The reforms being proposed are nothing more than an attempt to seize all political power and control.

Intro

Welcome everyone to another episode of The PAS Report Weekly Roundup Podcast. This is your host Nick Giordano.

We finally get to the Senate this week. As I continue to explain how the current attempts to remake America and destroy our institutions, one of the biggest threats is to the makeup of the Senate. In this episode, I will lay out how and why the Senate functions as it does. More importantly, I will focus on why the calls to reform the makeup of the Senate are for nothing more than power and control. As more and more people are calling to change the Senate, we must fight back to ensure America remains the greatest country in the history of the world.

As always, if you want to see the show notes go to thepasreport.com.

Impeachment Update

Before I get into the Senate, I want to briefly give an impeachment update. As I’ve said before, this is nothing more than trying to overthrow a duly elected President.

To be clear, there are two parts in the attempt to take down President Trump. The first being the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has disdain for President Trump. President Trump goes against the norms, and they don’t like to have the status quo challenged. They also have no regard for the people, and believe, We the People, are ignorant. They believe that the American people cannot be trusted, and they have taken it upon themselves to usurp power and authority in an attempt to correct what they perceive as a threat to their grip on power.

These are the elitist political bureaucrats. They have allowed their ideology to infect their professional responsibilities and stand for everything we are against. We are not a country based on an aristocracy or an elite class where the handful gets to determine what’s in our best interest. They have forgotten that they are not elected and do not get to decide what policies are to be implemented and which can be changed.

The second part is the House Democrats. They have shown that it has nothing to do with seeking out the truth. As I stated last week, nearly all of the House Democrats said they would vote to impeach the President, when they only saw the transcript of the phone call and the whistleblower complaint. Several Senators already said that they would vote to remove the President without evidence or the trial.

These same House and Senate Democrats have been completely willing to overlook the bureaucratic abuses because many in the bureaucracy and many of the Congressional Democrats have the same goal- to destroy the President. They are pushing this impeachment charade and are selectively leaking evidence designed to damage President Trump.

The House and Senate Democrats have a calculated strategy. They know that President Trump’s base will stick by him, but they also know many Republicans in the House and Senate are weak. Democrats are attempting to turn Republican House and Senate members against the President.

If they can successfully remove the President, they know that Trump’s base will hold those Republicans accountable, and it will destroy the republican party. Many Trump supporters will stay home, allowing Democrats a clean sweep of the Senate and the presidency.

It’s a risky strategy they are willing to take because they see the weakness in their current crop of candidates, and they believe they can’t afford for President Trump to get re-elected, but more importantly, they can’t afford for President Trump to win the popular vote. Democrats talk about unity, yet they have chosen the most divisive strategy in an effort to seize power.

This is the main reason they are trying to avoid all investigations into what happened with the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, Clinton/Ukraine involvement in 2016, CrowdStrike and the DNC server, Biden corruption with Ukraine and China, etc. If what happened gets exposed, they know it will damage the Democrats beyond repair.

This is why when you bring up these possible scandals, Democrats and their allies in the press will say these things have already been investigated. Then when you ask who did the investigating, they respond with an insult and say it’s time to move on from 2016 and focus on what the president is doing now.

Here is my typical daily conversation with people that hate President Trump:

Me: Shouldn’t we investigate to find out if the bureaucracy abused power in launching the Trump-Russia investigation? Shouldn’t we at least look into Biden, Ukraine, and China for possible corruption, especially that he is running for President and could be used for blackmail or coercion? Shouldn’t we look at the Clinton/Ukraine connection in 2016, and the DNC servers?

Them: That’s already been investigated, and they found no wrongdoing.

Me: Who investigated? What agency? Where can I find the report?

Them: You guys will defend anything Trump does.

Me: I didn’t even bring up President Trump’s name. My world does not revolve around him. So it’s okay with you if illegal activity took place within the bureaucracy, and other American officials, and you still didn’t answer my other question?

Them: Trump is destroying the Constitution. How can’t you see that?

Me: President Trump will be out of office in 1 or 5 years. Wouldn’t an unelected bureaucracy, trying to destroy a duly elected President and thinks it can do whatever it wants to, represent the gravest threat to the Constitution? Also, why the double standard? Essentially, you are accusing President Trump of the same things, so shouldn’t those be investigated as well?

Them: They don’t say anything and walk away with a pissed off look on their face.

My question is, why are they so afraid if everything was done legally?

Democrats are being shortsighted and will regret that their hatred for President Trump drove their agenda. Democrats are setting a new standard, and Republicans will do the same thing as political retribution. Also, If the bureaucracy is successful, it’s only a matter of time before they turn on a Democrat they don’t like.

Senate

I want to shift gears and focus on the Senate. Increasing censorship and silencing others, doing away with the Electoral College, and weaponizing impeachment is not enough. There are some who are calling to reform the U.S. Senate. The notion of reforming the Senate would be laughable if it weren’t for the dangers of such talk.

Those that wish to reform the Senate make the argument that the Senate is an undemocratic institution. They believe it is unfair that each state has equal representation regardless of population. While they are correct that Senate is undemocratic, they are either ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or are flat out deceiving the American people.

The origins of the Senate

Those that say the Senate is an undemocratic institution are correct. What they do not tell you is it’s designed that way on purpose. Here again, we see the failures of our education system as people continually call the United States a democracy. The founding fathers did not like the idea of direct democracy, and they believed democracy leads to the “tyranny of the majority.”

Madison said at the Constitutional Convention, “It ought finally to occur to a people deliberating on a Government for themselves, that as different interests necessarily result from the liberty meant to be secured, the major interest might under sudden impulses be tempted to commit injustice on the minority.” (Madison- Term of the Senate) So, the founders settled on creating a Republic.

While the House of Representatives is the “peoples” House, the Senate exists to represent the States. The Senate is an institution designed to protect the rights of States and to ensure that the minority opinion will always have say. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that Senators do what is in the best interests of their State as opposed to what the people may want.

They understood people would call for the government to act in areas/policy issues the government should not be involved in. The founding fathers recognized the people can be wrong and will make constant demands of government. The founding fathers believed the U.S. Senate should not be influenced by the political pressures of the people. During the Constitutional Convention, Madison made this clear when he described the makeup of the Senate and said, “First to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.” (Madison- Term of the Senate) They did not want the Senate to fall victim and be pressured by the mob.

The Senate is supposed to be a more deliberative body than the House. The Senate is “sufficiently respectable for its wisdom & virtue, to aid on such emergences, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale,” and in Federalist 62, Madison writes, “No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.” (Federalist 62)

The importance of the State

The Senate highlights the importance of the States within our system. Senators were originally elected by state legislatures so that they would be more aligned to the concept of state rights and work within the state’s best interest. The founders believed that “among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.” (Federalist 62)

The evolution of the Senate

While State Legislators were originally responsible for selecting the Senators, the States were largely irresponsible. In many cases, State legislatures left Senate vacancies unfilled because they could not agree within their legislatures.

Also, in several states, urban political machines controlled by “The Boss” would select who should serve as a Senator, and they were seen as nothing more than a puppet for these political machines.

Due to the neglect and abuses, the 17^th Amendment was passed in 1813. The 17th Amendment established that Senators would no longer be appointed by state legislatures. Rather, they would be directly elected by the people of the state. (17^th Amendment)

While it is understandable to introduce the 17^th Amendment, it is also important to note this removed a major safeguard within the system. They would now be susceptible to the political pressures of the people. The 17th Amendment was an overreaction. Before the 17th Amendment, the problems within the Senate could have been fixed internally.

Senators would now be susceptible to the mob. The good news is that most Senate bills require a 60-vote threshold, which presents a challenge in pushing through legislation. Our legislative system is designed to be slow, awkward, and complex.

Congress has an 18% approval rating, which is dramatically low. The number one reason that people give for their disapproval is that they say Congress gets nothing done, but that is a benefit. Our founding fathers believed in the 3 Principles of Old Republicanism.

The idea of the government that governs best governs least was not lost on the founding fathers. They wanted the legislative branch to be one of debate and dialogue rather than one of just passing laws. The founders understood that every law is designed to restrict human behavior in some form or fashion.

Some laws will be necessary, but the founding fathers wanted a system that ensured the issue would be examined from a variety of points-of-view. That all options would be considered, and that after the debate is exhausted, then, and only, then would Congress act if it appears to be in the best interest of the United States.

It was not about what the majority of people wanted. It was about what is in the best interest of the people, as well as the states. They understood human behavior and that our initial knee-jerk reaction will always be to look towards the government to solve problems, but the government cannot solve all the problems, and the Senate is supposed to be the more distinguished body.

Those that want to reinvent the Senate

There are many today calling to reinvent the Senate and make it a more representative body. Those calling for to reform the Senate are only doing so for political and ideological reasons. It has little to do with any defect within the system. They claim they want to reform the Senate in the name of democracy, but as stated before, the Senate is supposed to be undemocratic, and we are a Republic.

They argue it is not fair how a state like Idaho, with a population of 1.7 million people, has the same representation as a state like California, which has a population of 39.5 million people. It has nothing to do with representation and everything to do with domination. If we allow Senate seats to be apportioned by population, then the most populous states will dominate American politics, and the smaller states become completely irrelevant.

The Founders warned directly against representative Senate. Madison wrote, “An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.” (Madison- Term of the Senate)

He understood that the urge to tinker with the makeup of the Senate would grow as time went by, but as I stated earlier, the Senate is about Equality amongst the States, not a representation of the people. The House represents the people, and the Senate represents the state.

Introducing new States into the Union

There are some who recognize that making the Senate a representative body is complex and difficult. They also know it would take time for it to become a reality. There are some that seek to shift the balance of power through granting statehood to Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. The majority of the Democrat presidential candidates support statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.

Introducing new states should not be based on political ideology and a party gaining more power. Rather, it should be based on how that new state would contribute and benefit both the States and the United States as a whole. Democrats see it as a way to put the House of Representatives securely in the Democrat’s hands. More importantly, they view these potential new states as critical to solidifying a Democrat majority in the Senate as DC will vote Democrat. Hillary Clinton won 91% of the vote compared to Donald Trump’s 4%.

Closing

The calls to dramatically reform and essentially abolish the Senate are not that new. In 1911, Congressman Victor Berger, the first admitted socialist in the House of Representatives, called the Senate an “obstructive and useless body,” and he introduced a bill to do just that. (U.S. Senate)

The calls to reform the Senate come from the same socialist wing of 1911 under the guise of progressivism. While reforming the Senate, or abolishing it outright, the calls are growing louder. We need to pay attention, as this idea is gaining traction.

The far-left calls the Senate a racist institution that exists to keep down minorities, and the majority of Americans. They bash anything between the coasts as not representative of America and believe the elite in New York and California should dominate politics.

As we continue to call out those who want to remake America and destroy our institutions, remember all the topics have a common theme of nothing more than seizing power and control. They want to dominate the political landscape and instill policies they call moral and just.

They believe Americans are too dumb to know what’s good for them, and they want to be the authority. Consider this, how is remaking the Senate or abolishing any different than Maduro’s attempt o dissolve the legislature, or Peru’s President, Martin Vizcarra, dissolving Congress? Those that preach morality and the rightness of policy exhibit authoritarian tendencies.

The PAS Report will continue to raise awareness and focus on these issues. The founding fathers created a system that can last. They institutionalized safeguards to protect the system from the people and to protect the people from government.

The only way to destroy our system is from within. Those that propose changing our institutions argue that times changed, and the founding fathers are outdated. They argue that America needs to adapt to changing times. If you listen to their ideas, they are nothing more than a regurgitation of a failed past that has been tried in previous countries throughout history. They are offering nothing unique or new.

Please share this episode with others and take 30 seconds to write a good review on whatever platform you listen to the podcast on.

As always if there is a topic or issue you would like me to focus on, send an email to podcast@pasreport.com.

Thank you for joining us, stay safe, and I’ll be back next week.

Follow Nicholas Giordano

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•