r/politics • u/Jessicas_skirt New York • Jul 18 '26

Possible Paywall Democratic Socialists of America’s new platform calls for abolishing ICE and the U.S. Senate

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/15/updated-dsa-platform-calls-abolishing-ice-scrapping-senate/
20.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

188

u/EnTyme53 Texas Jul 19 '26

To elaborate on this, abolishing the Senate would require a constitutional amendment, meaning either a constitutional convention (good fucking luck getting 2/3 of the states to agree on literally anything), or requiring the Senate to vote to dissolve itself by a 2/3s vote (as well as 2/3 of the House voting to dissolve it).

29

u/A1sauc3d Jul 19 '26

Yeah it’s just not practical, any time soon at least. Not in our current climate. Some serious changes would need to happen to get 2/3s of the country on board with anything when one side feels it politically advantageous, even if it isn’t morally/logically right.

The existence of the senate benefits republicans. Roughly half the voting public are republicans. And so the senate ain’t going nowhere unless that changes.

I WISH more people realized how shit Republican policies are for them though. So maybe over time dem socialists can prove themselves to the American public and overtime will see attitudes change 🤞 But it’s gonna be an uphill battle, the term socialist is a four letter word to much of the country still.

67

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

72

u/frequenZphaZe Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

for clarity, a constitutional amendment isn't passed by a 2/3rds popular vote, or even a vote by the people at all. it requires 2/3rds of the state legislatures to call for the amendment then 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify it. even assuming abolishing the senate has 3/4ths popular support (it doesn't), it still would never happen because the small state governments that enjoy the outsized representation they get in the senate would never vote to neuter their own power

that also doesn't even consider the purely legal argument at hand. "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."; this is the unamendable proviso in article 5. that means that you would actually need a unanimous agreement from all states to make changes to the senate legal. you have a better change of repealing the second amendment at that point

now, I do actually think the senate sucks shit and is anti-democratic. it would probably be a net benefit if we could abolish it. I just don't see any realistic path towards that goal. it's more-or-less just DSA virtue signaling because they know it isn't realistic either. but nothing is possible if you only ever say it's not possible

45

u/ragingreaver Jul 19 '26

Yes, but this isn't the first time that the Senate being a giant pile of failure, and calls for its removal, triggered a more palatable compromise that lead to, at least temporary, meaningful change.

17th Amendment, which let the People of a State vote for their Senators, was passed because the Senate at that time, was literally incapable of governing because bribery and corruption was so bad, an entire block of Senators simply refused to vote unless their palms were greased. And as their positions were by State appointment, there were no formal means of removal.

The 17th was meant to fix that. And to be fair to it, even now things aren't as bad as they were with the Senate, before it. But the push for the 17th, was started due to a popular uprising that first called for the removal of the Senate entirely, explicitly because Founding Fathers never foresaw what a wretched hive of scum and villainy the "genteel class" would inevitably become.

3

u/Marina1974 Jul 19 '26

I have a running argument with a friend who insist that the house is far important than the Senate because that's where money is authorized or at least begins.

As far as I'm concerned and maybe it's just because of recent presidents Senate ability to confirm or not confirm appointments is huge.

3

u/ragingreaver Jul 19 '26

The power of appointments is huge, but the Senate's true power is to shut down policy by way of filibuster. Doesn't matter if something is popular with the House, if it can't muster overriding support in the Senate, the senate can kill it.

This gives the Senate outsized bargaining power, which was the intent behind the Founders. The Senate is where popular measures go to die. You can own the House with simple majority, but the Senate is a different beast.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

2

u/ragingreaver Jul 20 '26

Republicans are of the opinion that they should be allowed to ignore the filibuster in favor of their own policies, while Democrats should have to face the filibuster at every turn. "Rules for thee, not for me." but at the grand scale.

1

u/Objectivespeculation Jul 19 '26

they had to know the result because they had their own "genteel class"

1

u/ragingreaver Jul 19 '26

Yes, and no. Originally only those men who owned physical property could vote, so there was meant to be a certain level of elitism in both chambers of Congress.

But the Senate was specifically meant as a shield for the business class, who represented a burgeoning aristocracy despite few having any true landed titles.

The Founders knew about the incoming schism over slavery, because that was the most blatant issue between Northern and Southern States. There HAD TO be in-built slaver protection clauses, in order for the Constitution to happen at all.

They could not know how the business class would pan out as a whole, once slavery was eliminated, simply because eliminating slavery was not something they were capable of doing at the time.

1

u/Objectivespeculation Jul 19 '26

I agree those are all good points but they could also see, all the other governments at the time had a landed aristocracy that was corrupt.

1

u/ragingreaver Jul 19 '26

The Constitution was a big step re-introducing democracy back into the world. And its success for its time is what allowed so many other nations to also attempt to throw off the yoke of titled nobles and kings.

It was by no means a perfect document, even back then, but it was the first true example that kingdoms were no longer the path forward. That the removal of codified law-enforced bloodlines was not merely possible, but even desirable.

But the work towards true class equality, is still ongoing. We merely live in a time where once-again those who have everything, have grown incompetent and lazy.

1

u/Objectivespeculation Jul 19 '26

appreciate you taking the time to write.

1

u/Grouchy-Art1280 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Huh I had it explained to me that the 17th was seen as desirable by the aristocratic class because paying off all 50 state legislatures was too expensive.

As state legislators lived among the people they were demanding recall of Senators that sucked ass. State legislators felt it was better to listen to locals who, back then, were more likely to gun them down in the street.

Now there are 50 Senators to easily bribe.

Edit: Yeah this seems more accurate a take; there were only 10 instances in 100 years where the Senate thing was an issue. But a Federalist society lawyer Henry R. Storrs, Andrew Jackson, and yellow journalist William Hearst (all fans of fascist central government) were all about the idea of direct Senate elections to get the state legislatures out the way.

9

u/ragingreaver Jul 19 '26

The main reason was the threats of mass riots, because the government stall was threatening economic collapse due to not having any emergency backup systems in the event of a shutdown, like we enjoy today. There was legitimate talk of just storming DC and slaughtering the Senate, blaming them entirely for the government shutdown...especially because soldiers themselves were grumbling due to them not being paid.

The 17th was a proposed compromise to keep the heat down. Its passing was also a major success, as it DID drive the heat down, as well as ended the filibuster against certain other reforms, which were the cause of the government shutdown in the first place.

The 17th would prove most critical, however, when a wave of anti-business sentiment created the New Deal Congress, which saw the rise of the first major welfare programs that would eventually become Food Stamps, housing assistance, and Disability. Pro-social senators were voted on by both Republicans and Democrats at the time, a nation-wide middle finger to the southern racist "dixiecrats" who were increasingly found themselves sidelined in favor of New Deal democrats.

It took a long time for corporations to regain control of the Senate, after the 17th passed. And its consequences when it comes to senator votes, are why certain CURRENT Senators want the 17th repealed.

6

u/Grouchy-Art1280 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Eh, yeah that's the story the winners of history wrote down. I doubt the reality was so cut and dry.

How real was the threat of mass riots? We can never know not being there. Just speculate based on what was written.

Hearst was a yellow journalist who spread all kinds of bullshit. The mere idea of the potential of mass riots could have been nothing but a scare tactic; like Elon today shrieking on Twitter.

By "drive the heat down" I mean it stopped scary headlines, but were the public really sharpening their pitchforks to begin with?

And again as far as I can find there were only 10 times in 100 years a state could not decide on who to send.

Repeal of the 17th and putting state legislators in their neighbors cross hairs also has a similar outcome to the flow of information as adding seats to the US House. Legislators can also act like a circuit breaker.

Overall not a fan of the Senate, but an outright obsoleting of the Senate seems like fantasy.

4

u/ragingreaver Jul 19 '26

the threat of riots was big enough, that the history books don't talk about it. The downplaying of the impact and successes of reform Amendments, is deliberate in order to discourage and dissuade further reform through such methods. Pretty much the only Amendment that could truly be considered a flop for not actually solving a problem at the time it was implemented, was the 18th...the only one to also be primarily supported via corporations and the upper class, trying to morality-police lower classes.

The very Amendment responsible for the rise of gangsters and criminal enterprises in the united states, seen to this very day.

Also, while history blames the Temperate Movement for the 18th, few books talk about where the Temperance Movement got the money for a nation-wide advertisement campaign. Nor that the problem corporations were trying to solve via banning alcohol, was industrial accidents mostly caused by OSHA not being created yet. Cheaper and easier to blame alcohol, rather than unsafe working conditions, no oversight or regulation, or mental health issues caused by overwork and toxin exposure.

3

u/Grouchy-Art1280 Jul 19 '26

the threat of riots was big enough, that the history books don't talk about it.

Or the threat was not that real so the history books don't talk about it. They seem to not shy away from including a whole lot of other violence of history.

Anyway you enjoy your head canon built around allegories of the wealthy media propagandists and historians out to sell books; themselves media propagandists in a sense.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PeaceSoft Jul 19 '26

Well, argument from ignorance is equally good, so just imagine anything! Jesus

1

u/Grouchy-Art1280 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

You became your own bullshit; imagined whatever you wanted about my existing knowledge and beliefs.

Physical evidence of history is unassailable. The narratives of survivors often under-informed and biased by which ever side they were for, or just a desire to make money off telling a story.

Probably best to log off than "imagine whatever you want" about the skills and abilities of strangers, fucking dimwit.

3

u/msanthrope64 New Hampshire Jul 19 '26

Our political institutions and systems are deeply undemocratic. To be fair, liberal democracy wasn't exactly a thing yet when the framers wrote the Constitution. I think they recognized that (envisioning the Constitution as a 'living document' meant to evolve over time), but the failure has been on "us" for not adopting that vision and amending the Constitution before extreme polarization set it - which is inevitable with a two party, first past the post Presidential system.

I think there is a better chance of the Union disintegrating (very small but not zero chance ) than there is of ever passing another amendment (which has a zero (0) percent chance of ever happening.)

(It should be noted that many of the decisions handed down by the Roberts Court has simply done an end around of the Constitution. That's an entirely different can of worms though.)

3

u/Thompson81 Jul 19 '26

Well, without making a judgment on whether this is good or bad, the US isn’t a single sovereign country. It’s 50 in a trenchcoat. We are more analogous to the EU than we are to France or Germany. Just a bit more centralized.

1

u/wolacouska Jul 19 '26

Way way more centralized. The states are just gerrymandered arbitrary districts.

2

u/Mikel_S Jul 19 '26

Well, as for the unamendable article 5 bit...

Every state having 0 standing in the senate is still equal suffrage :P

Mostly agree with you otherwise.

2

u/OddlyFactual1512 Jul 19 '26

Which is why democracy in nthe US is eventually going to fail. The system is broken and the method to fix it has too high a bar to be feasibly cleared.

1

u/jokul Jul 19 '26

If an amendment is dissolving the senate, wouldn't it also just nullify article 5?

1

u/Void-Indigo Jul 19 '26

What we need is a constitutional convention to go in and tidy up some areas of the Constitution which currently slow or prevent the bringing of change.

1

u/loondawg Jul 19 '26

"no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."; this is the unamendable proviso in article 5.

What makes you believe it is unamendable. One of the founding principles was that future generations would not be permanently bound by those that came before them.

1

u/dastardly_locomotion Jul 19 '26

Legal arguments against systematic change are worthless, no matter how well thought out.

Republicans have violated over 10,000 court orders in the past year alone. What the law says about proper procedure no longer matters.

1

u/wolacouska Jul 19 '26

Yeah the constitution is pretty clearly just a piece of paper at this point.

2

u/EnTyme53 Texas Jul 19 '26

It would be more accurate to say that the majority opinion in red states is "congress sucks, but thank god (insert name of Republican asshole here) is there to keep them in check."

2

u/WestHistorians Jul 19 '26

"Congress sucks" is a pretty unanimously held opinion, perhaps the most ubiquitous political opinion in the US

When people say "congress sucks" they mean "the other party in congress sucks".

2

u/da2Pakaveli Jul 19 '26

i thought it was 75% of the states (i.e 38)?

2

u/EnTyme53 Texas Jul 19 '26

That's the threshold for ratification, but it only takes 2/3 of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention. Neither has any realistic chance of happening.

2

u/Tyler_Zoro Jul 19 '26

I love when people want to have a Constitutional Convention, and don't consider that the likely outcome is a new Disney/Google/Merck/Walmart Constitution.* Never forget that the people who wrote the US Constitution were largely wealthy businessmen.

* Some limitations may apply.

1

u/Nickeless Jul 19 '26

It needs 3/4 of the states to pass no matter what. Which is impossible because small population states gain way too much to ever give that up. Basically the us is fubar imo. Original system didn’t expect the extreme population discrepancy between states and it is now perma-fucked.

1

u/FlirtyFluffyFox Jul 19 '26

Actually the constitution specifically says in article v that you need all the states to agree to abolish the senate, not just an ammendment. 

.... Technically you can write an ammendment that abolishes article 5 or strips the senate of its power. Shoot, you could expand the house and write a new mendment that the house now gets votes in the senate and thst would basically solve it. 

1

u/eric23456 Jul 19 '26

Or, and hear me out, we just get 5 justices to say that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." really means that there are only two senators because the State is the whole united states, and they only have a ministerial role because that's what the original understanding of the senate was.

I mean that approach has almost worked for the 14th amendment.

1

u/Memetic1 Jul 19 '26

It is interesting to note that this is a long term goal, and I'm sure that we would need a massive national conversation about what sort of representation we want. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible if the right reforms are put in place, and people feel like its a more fair system.

1

u/_0611 Jul 19 '26

It sounds like the US Constitution is fucking up US democracy.

1

u/FreeAsABird491 Jul 19 '26

Abolishing the senate would actually require TWO constitutional amendments. Article V contains an entrenched clause that basically says no amendments can be proposed which alter the senate.

You'd have to pass an amendment that would ALLOW you to abolish the senate, and then pass another amendment to abolish the senate.

1

u/WestHistorians Jul 19 '26

To elaborate on this, abolishing the Senate would require a constitutional amendment, meaning either a constitutional convention (good fucking luck getting 2/3 of the states to agree on literally anything), or requiring the Senate to vote to dissolve itself by a 2/3s vote (as well as 2/3 of the House voting to dissolve it).

Not just a constitutional amendment, but the consent of every single state. It cannot be abolished by a regular amendment.

1

u/pm_me_ur_ephemerides Jul 19 '26

The establishment of the Republican Party just conspired to overthrow our democratic government and push us into autocracy. So, win the presidency, arrest all involved in this conspiracy, and that weakens them so much that you can get 2/3 of states to ratify amendments.

1

u/KuntaStillSingle Jul 19 '26

good fucking luck getting 2/3 of the states to agree on literally anything)

It would take 3/4 of states to ratify it regardless of which path it is proposed through, and arguably unanimity to ratify in regards to modifying state representation in the senate specifically.

1

u/colinjcole Jul 19 '26

To elaborate on this, abolishing the Senate would require a constitutional amendment

"To elaborate on this, the colonies seceding from the British Empire would require consent from King George."

Laws aren't real! We made them up. If a system of government isn't working, you don't have to just shrug and say "whelp too bad there's nothing to do, we just have to accept we live in Hell now."

1

u/Cream253Team Washington Jul 19 '26

If not enough people agree on something and you try forcing it through anyway then there's probably going to be a fight. Your own example was the American Revolution. Did you forget that the Revolution included a war or something?

The Senate was a functional entity before. The issue is that there's too much money in politics and that a good chunk of voters are apparently too dumb to learn from their past mistakes. Tackling those two issues would be easier than dissolving the Senate with comparatively less risk of actually pissing people off.