Political parties usually dismiss claims that they undermine the constitutional framework, but the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have embraced this notion as part of their identity.
The DSA has rolled out an ambitious new plan that includes abolishing the U.S. Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, alongside their vision of a classless society.
This proposal represents a radical shift away from the American political system established back in 1789.
It sounds like something you’d expect if a group of disgruntled rebels took over Washington, D.C.
In comparison, suggestions like eliminating the filibuster seem minor, and even court packing appears relatively harmless.
However, the call to dismantle the Senate, often lauded as the world’s largest deliberative body, has garnered significant attention.
DSA co-chair Gustavo Gordillo recently shared his views on Fox News, labeling the Senate as “undemocratic.” He also noted that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) opposes both the filibuster and certain elements of the Senate rooted in Jim Crow laws.
Contrary to Gordillo’s claims, the Senate operates as a democratic institution; candidates for Senate seats must earn more votes than their competitors.
Yet, one of its key functions is to serve as a counterbalance to the impulses of the populace.
When the Senate was first established, its members were appointed by state legislatures.
That practice changed long ago; the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, necessitates direct elections. Nevertheless, the staggered elections and six-year terms create a buffer against fleeting public opinion, setting the Senate apart from the House.
Moreover, Senate rules emphasize consensus and introduce delay into the legislative process.
Ocasio-Cortez seemed taken aback when she mentioned Senate practices linked to Jim Crow, which emerged almost a century after the Senate was founded.
The filibuster historically sought to block landmark civil rights legislation, but those efforts ultimately failed.
However, this tool also allows minority parties in the Senate, including Democrats, to challenge the agenda set by the sitting president from an opposing party.
The Senate serves another essential purpose: it ensures that smaller states are represented equally alongside larger ones.
This leads to the argument that the Senate is undemocratic. After all, why should Wyoming, with about 600,000 residents, have the same number of senators as California, which has a population of roughly 40 million?
But this structure aims to prevent any single group from dominating national governance while giving a voice to often-overlooked regions.
In systems with proportional representation, like the House, California is afforded 52 senators while Wyoming only gets one.
Regardless of the arguments for or against this bill, the Constitution states that each state is entitled to equal representation in the Senate, which cannot be amended without consent. “No State shall be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.”
This implies that altering the constitutional framework cannot happen through formal means, as the Founders didn’t include an easily accessible self-destruct mechanism.
Yet, the DSA seems unfazed.
Their goal appears to align more closely with a return to the Articles of Confederation, which featured a single-house Congress, no president, and no federal judiciary.
This, ironically, led to a markedly weakened central government—something the DSA now wants to counteracting the suppression of public sentiment inherent in a complex federal structure.
Ultimately, this might be a glimpse toward what Lord Hailsham famously called an “electoral dictatorship” in his critique of the British parliamentary model.
In a recent address, Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused leftist extremists of attacking “symbols of power, invention, and achievement,” aiming to dismantle rather than create.
It seems he might agree with the DSA on some level, suggesting they challenge the fundamental order of the U.S. Constitution. Socialists, in this view, see our governing institutions—long-standing and effective—as adversaries.
