Ben Sasse Wants to Make the US Senate Great Again (And I Could Not Agree More!)

US Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) is a consummate constitutionalist.

He does not do whatever President Trump wants, and he is not afraid to demand jealous safeguarding of the United States Senate and its institutions.

Indeed, the Framers of the United States Constitution never intended to the United States Senate to operate as an extension of the House of Representatives. The US Senate was never intended to be an extensive democratic chamber.

The US Senators were supposed to be elected by the legislatures, and they were supposed 

Make the Senate Great Again

To restore the world’s greatest deliberative body, we need to think big.

What would the Founding Fathers think of America if they came back to life? Their eyes would surely bug out first at our technology and wealth. But I suspect they’d also be stunned by the deformed structure of our government. The Congress they envisioned is all but dead. The Senate in particular is supposed to be the place where Americans hammer out our biggest challenges with debate. That hasn’t happened for decades—and the rot is bipartisan.

Many on the left think the problem is the filibuster, which requires a supermajority to end debate and enact most legislation. But ending the filibuster would allow political parties to change the direction of the country dramatically with a succession of shifting 51-49 votes. That’s a path to even more polarization and instability. The Senate’s culture needs dramatic change aimed at promoting debate, not ending it. Here are some ideas:

• Cut the cameras. Most of what happens in committee hearings isn’t oversight, it’s showmanship. Senators make speeches that get chopped up, shipped to home-state TV stations, and blasted across social media. They aren’t trying to learn from witnesses, uncover details, or improve legislation. They’re competing for sound bites.

There’s one notable exception: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the majority of whose work is done in secret. Without posturing for cameras, Republicans and Democrats cooperate on some of America’s most complicated and urgent problems. Other committees could follow their example, while keeping transparency by making transcripts and real-time audio available to the public.

• Abolish standing committees. The Senate is supposed to be the world’s greatest deliberative body, but it operates on about 20 permanent fiefdoms. Dividing legislative work is important, but there’s no corporation that would tackle its problems by creating 20 permanent committees and running every decision through them. The Senate should instead create temporary two-year committees, each devoted to making real progress on one or two big problems. Committees should draw power from their accomplishments, not based on which industries need to supplicate before the gavel.

• Pack the floor. Serious debate happens only if senators show up. Ninety-nine percent of the time you see a senator talking on the floor, he’s speaking to a chamber with somewhere between zero and two colleagues present. The Senate’s rules privilege the majority, which controls the agenda and floor time. Senators ought to be packed on the floor having real debates. We can do that by changing the rules to allow committees to control some floor time. Elections have consequences, so the majority leader should control the majority of the Senate’s time, but committees should be able to command specific times for specific debates.

• Live together. A lot of time is spent demonizing the opposition, but most senators can get along quite well. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii is as liberal as the day is long, but he’s my friend. Senators should live, eat, and meet in dormitories when the Senate is in session. It’s hard to demonize people you spend time with every day.

• Cancel re-election. One of the biggest reasons Congress gives away its power to the executive branch is that it’s politically expedient for both parties to avoid the decisions that come from the work of legislating. Lawmakers are obsessed with staying in office, and one of the easiest ways to keep getting re-elected is by avoiding hard decisions. We ought to propose a constitutional amendment to limit every senator to one term, but we should double it from six years to 12. Senators who don’t have to worry about short-term popularity can work instead on long-term challenges.

If that’s a bridge too far, at least ban fundraising while the Senate is in session in Washington. It’s an everyday experience to sit down at a $2,000-a-plate lunch fundraiser and then run over to make committee votes. Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment, but it shouldn’t be the primary focus of senators when we’ve got work to do.

• Repeal the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, it replaced the appointment of senators by state legislatures with direct election. Different states bring different solutions to the table, and that ought to be reflected in the Senate’s national debate. The old saying used to be that all politics is local, but today—thanks to the internet, 24/7 cable news and a cottage industry dedicated to political addiction—politics is polarized and national. That would change if state legislatures had direct control over who serves in the Senate.

• Sunset everything. For decades Pennsylvania Avenue has been a one-way street, as authority flowed from Congress to the executive branch. When the unelected bureaucracy gets power, it doesn’t let go. We ought to end that by having the Senate create a “super committee” dedicated to reviewing all such delegations of power over the past 80 years and then proposing legislation to sunset the authority of entire bureaucracies on a rolling basis. Does, say, the Health and Human Services Department ever answer for its aggressive regulatory lawmaking? Of course not. Sunset all its authority in 12 months and watch lawmakers start to make actual laws.

• Make a real budget. The power of the purse is Congress’s primary lever—and the area where Congress is most unserious. The budget process is completely broken, and every couple of months lawmakers are faced with a monumentally stupid decision: Shut the government down or spend 102% of what was spent last year, with no oversight. It’s an endless series of all-or-nothing brinkmanship fights—continuing resolutions, omnibus spending deals and debt-ceiling hikes. We ought to fix that with two-year budgeting that includes all federal spending, including on entitlements. We ought to end the distinction between appropriation and authorization. Legislation that authorizes federal action should also appropriate the money to pay for it.

These aren’t partisan proposals, because congressional dysfunction isn’t a partisan problem. Lawmakers—Republicans and Democrats—don’t make laws. Over years, Congress made the choice to shirk its duty and cede power to the executive branch. Recovery will be hard, but it’s time for Congress build some muscle and figure out how to serve the American people by doing our constitutionally mandated jobs again.

Mr. Sasse, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nebraska.

Here are my reflections on the above set of suggested reforms:

I agree with the vast majority of US Senator Ben Sasse's (R-Nebraska) suggested reforms.

The Senate’s culture needs dramatic change aimed at promoting debate, not ending it."

Agreed. Here are reforms that would restore the deliberative core of the US Senate:

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment. The Senate was designed to represent STATES, not individuals. Senators should not be elected by popular vote. The United States is not a democracy, although one chamber does indeed represent the more democratic impulse in the country: The House of Representatives

2. Cut the cameras. Hearings should be audio-recorded only (just like Supreme Court hearings), and transcripts can be provided afterwards. No more videos, no more playing to the cameras.

3. Abolish standing committees. YES! Every committee should be ad hoc (set up for a specific task, then decommissioned once the task is completed). Standing committees have allowed The Swamp to gain considerable power in Washington at the expense of the states and the people (cf. Ninth and Tenth Amendments)

4. "Pack the Floor" -- Senators need to show up and speak. Sasse points out that most US Senators speak on the floor to only one or two people. There is no real discussion or deliberation, just a lot of pontification and monologue. By extension, US Senators must be present when invoking a filibuster. They cannot "call in" to object to a legislative motion, and that alone suffices. Blue paper motions must also be scrapped. If a home state senator wants to block or delay a judicial or executive nominee, he needs to make the case to the entire body.

5. "Sunset everything", i.e. give regulatory or legislative action and commission assignments a 12-month time limit. There should be no bureaucratic process in place beyond one year. Every legislative action of such a caliber should have a required "sunset" clause. This reform from Senator Sasse is excellent.

6. I disagree with his call for term limits. No term limits for legislators. The best term limit is an election. Instead, we need to make it easier for every citizen to challenge incumbents. Enactment of recall for federal officials would be far more appropriate.

7. "Make a real budget ... We ought to end the distinction between appropriation and authorization. Legislation that authorizes federal action should also appropriate the money to pay for it." Yes. No more "all or nothing" budget bills which waste money on frivolous projects with no oversight.

The biggest reform needed, of course, is the full repeal of the 17th Amendment. Make America a Republic Again.

Redistricting Reforms and Term Limits: Wrong Reforms for DC, and Right Reforms to Consider

I wanted to touch on two reforms making their way through Congress.

There is a populist uprising against the political class in Washington DC. That's a good thing, in that our power should belong to the federal government, which can decide what they want to do with us.

Our power needs to be restored to us as much as possible, and the clear delineation of enumerated powers must be reasserted.

However, one reform suggested by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will not help our problems in Washington DC.

Term Limits

Term limits seem like a great idea at first. We have a two-term limit for chief executives, and I think that's a wise idea, although to my knowledge I don't know of any governor who served for multiple terms in office.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt got away with getting elected to four terms, and our country suffered greatly because of that. It's worth keeping metrics and safeguards in place which prevent dictatorships from taking over.

But term limits for Congressmen and US Senators is not a good idea. In fact, the Framers debated this issue in heated fashion during the Constitutional Convention and afterwards. The winning side on this debate decided against this proposal because a naive set of new legislators would not withstand corruption and malfeasance. Neophyte legislators would hurt the proper running of government, and such arbitrary measures do not ensure an end to distant, unaccountable representation.

California has term limits, and the state legislature has gotten more left-leaning and corrupt with every election cycle regardless. The third-house money, the special interests control Sacramento even more because legislators have little political capital or gravitas of their own. Speakers of the State Assembly lasted only one term or at most two.

It's very difficult to have any kind of checks and balances when leadership has little time or experience in a legislature. Perhaps term limits on lobbyists would be more effective. But would it be constitutional?

Non-partisan Redistricting vs. Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is a problem. Maryland has some of the worst looking districts in the country, as does Pennsylvania and Illinois.

But what can be done about it?

For the 2000s, very few Congressional seats flipped in California, too. The districts were drawn up so tightly and in such partisan fashion that opposing parties wouldn't bother filing challenges against incumbents. Congressmen who turn into distant kings and aloof princes is not a winning strategy for good governance, that is certain. However, just as the best term limit for an elected official is an election, the best solution to gerrymandering is the set of elections which take place right before the next census and redistricting efforts.

We need to waken the populace to the importance of the voter franchise. Non-partisan redistricting efforts are still very much partisan, in fact, but they are hidden from the public. It's harder to catch, but the redistricting efforts are still very slanted.

Perhaps the best way would be to have a partisan panel of Republicans and Democrats and let them carve up the districts as equitably as possible. But the idea of non-partisan anything is a full-on canard that no one buys anymore.

Other reforms worth considering

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment

We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the power of the state legislatures in Congress.

Senators were never supposed to be elected by popular vote, and the popular franchise is not an effecitve engine of oversight and accountability for US Senators. They serve for six years each term, and they get away with terrible votes. Only when they are up for re-election do they pay attention to the grassroots and the fervent, activist base of their differing political parties.

US Senators have actually become far more beholden to special interests in Washington DC than the needs of their primary constitutents: the states. The proper checks and balances against the federal government have fallen away a great deal because the states as political entities have less power to push back against federal government overreach.

The New Deal would have never happened but for the direct election of US Senators. Obamacare would have been stymied by now, as well.

2. Increase the number of House Reps

The House of Representatives is supposed to be the popular chamber, responding to the direct interests of the people. Right now, it's very difficult to believe that a House Rep can properly represent any district with a staggering population of 700,000+ citizens. By the 2020-2021 census, we can be certain that the district population will hit at least 750,000.

We need more localized, attentive representation than that. a Congressman should represent at most half that number. The Apportionment Act of 1911 set the number of House seats at 435, but that legislation can be changed to make it 875, and odd number to ensure that there will be few if any ties in the lower chamber of Congress.

The House of Representatives should operate more like the House of Commons, with more ready and immediate debate, plus a full discussion of the issues for all.

3. Congressional District Method for Apportionment of Electoral Votes in Presidential Elections

We need the Electoral College. It is an essential part of our republican form of government, ensure that direct democracy, aka mob rule does not become the rule of the day.

But there is a way to ensure that Presidential contenders visit more than a handful of swing states.

Maine and Nebraska have devised a different method of allocated electoral votes. Candidates who win the majority vote in a House district in a state win that one electoral vote. Candidates who win the popular vote for the entire state win two electoral votes, representing the two US Senators.

This kind of representation enabled Barack Obama to win one electoral vote in Nebraska in 2008, and for Trump to win one electoral vote in Maine. Those states were more competitive, especially Maine in 2016, because of this dynamic. California, Texas, and other large states would receive more visits from both candidates, as would swing Congressional districts, like Districts 4 and 5 in Oregon.

Confirm Gorsuch: Repeal the Filibuster, Judicial Review, and Judicial Tyranny Forever

For years, I had pled with conservatives and liberals alike on this seemingly academic issue. The filibuster rule in the United States Senate must be preserved. We need to keep this dilatory tactic for the good of the Republic. We must not allow the majority to ram through any kind of legislation they want to, at the expense of the dedicated minority.

Sure, it made sense. The U.S. Senate serves as the upper chamber to protect the interests of all states, and prevent the larger states edging out the smaller ones. The U.S. Senate was supposed to serve as the more elite branch of government, to “cool the passions” of populist sentiment, according to George Washington.

Unfortunately, the elitist temperament today has become just as dangerous to our republic as populist sentiments had been in the 1930s and 1940s. Furthermore, the Democratic Party has turned into a bunch of neck-tied anti-social injustice warriors hell-bent on forcing a destructive, anti-constitutional agenda onto the entire country. Two years ago, the Democratic US Senators attempted to pass a bill severely curtailing the Bill of Rights!

The Democratic Party has become the Regressive-Socialist-Communist Party, and they have no interest in fighting to ensure the protection of minority rights from majority rule. Their efforts are now the tyranny of the minority altogether, which the Framers fought against when they scrapped the cumbersome Articles of Confederation with our current United States Constitution. They will never stop using the filibuster, but not because they care about this country’s founding principle.

Combine this conflict with the confirmation of federal judges, particularly for the United States Supreme Court, and now it’s time to announce “Washington D.C. we have a problem!” The well-coiffed SJW-Democratic U.S. Senators are like wild animals cornered and facing ultimate capture. They are fighting to the death, fully aware that wavering on highly-qualified Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will dry up whatever George Soros money and grassroots volunteers they have depended on.

When it comes to the appointment of federal judges, however, the role of the US Senate has gotten considerably more complicated. The Supreme Court has become the final arbiter on our laws as well as the sense and legacy of our Constitution. This conflict is all wrong and must be resolved in a more thorough fashion. How did this happen? At first, the politicization of judges seems to have begun in the 1930s with Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatening to pack the Supreme Court with fifteen justices. FDR’s idea died a quick death, but the legacy of an activist court goes further. Forget Plessy v. Ferguson, and go back further than Dred Scott v. Sanford.

The original decision which set in place this obscure and ultimately destructive judicial tyranny: Marbury v. Madison. Then Chief Justice John Marshall may have had his heart in the right place, but his precedent has slowly eroded representative democracy and republican governance. Since when does an unelected justice get to decide which laws are and are not constitutional? When did the rapping of an old gavel determine whether a law would withstand final scrutiny or fail?

Alexander Hamilton outlined very persuasively the relative weakness of the judicial branch of government. The court system was never supposed to serve as a law-making or policy-making body. Why else would John Jay give up such an easy gig (he was the first Supreme Court Chief Justice) for an ambassadorship? The Framers viewed the court as small time for ambitios minds. Want a robust political future? Want to impact policy for decades to come? Get off the bench! Yet after 220 years of getting away with striking down laws and rewriting statutes, the Supremes and their circuit and district court inferiors have gotten too big for the black dresses.

How do we get out of this mess?

First, the Republicans are right to get rid of the filibuster for all judicial nominees. Just vote for them. Confirming Gorsuch will ensure a constitutional originalist, a strict constructionist who recognizes his role as a dispassionate umpire rather than a partisan zealot. Will Republicans regret this decision, however? Not if our elected official get serious about the core problem: ending judicial tyranny at all levels of the federal courts system.

Then talk about ending the role of judicial determinism in our legal culture, too. Judges in federal jurisdictions should ensure proper trial by jury in district courts, proper application of laws at the appellate and final Supreme Court levels. They should not wander into writing laws or arrogantly assume that their decisions determine whether laws remain on our books or get whisked off into the ash-heap of hasty repeals. This is a real problem, people, and it’s time for expert legal minds, elected officials, grassroots activists, and political pundits to face this issue. Time for a re-examination and ultimate repeal of Marbury v. Madison. It’s time to govern like 1787 (ratification of the US Constitution) and not like 1803, when judicial review was enacted by judicial fiat by Chief Justice John Marshall.

But what about the need to check and balance popular sentiment in the country? Very easy. The U.S. Senate should still act as a check on the popular vote. Right now it cannot, since US Senators are popularly elected, and thus more susceptible to political party pressures rather than Constitutional guarantees.

So, here's the way out of these judicial nominee landmines:

1. Repeal the filibuster. It is, after all, the Constitutional Option

2. Confirm Gorusch

3. Undo the Marbury v. Madison legacy of judicial review

4. Repeal the 17^th Amendment, and give back the U.S. Senate to the states, and restore the power of state legislatures to elect U.S. Senators.

Not easy, granted. But I think that Trump is ready to lead this iconoclastic agenda for the greater good of the country, and if 2018 turns out as I expect it to, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives will step closer to stable supermajorities (with the few remaining common-sense Democrats) to fix these underlying problems.