They already do try and do this, but it's still the local and well-established families and small business owners who dictate the election campaigns of who makes the ticket for the House.

As it should be, by the way.

But again: this would not solve your issues even if it did work like you say. It'd just prevent them from getting worse or, more realistically, make the process of them becoming worse slower.

The senate is not the house

they don propose laws

they don change laws

As those are the interests that should be represented at the district-level, and those interests should be preserved moving forward into the Senate, but as it stands now, that's not the case.

they just need to agree to laws

They simply don't have the tools to reverse past changes

s'not their Jeb

Much of those past changes can quickly be declared as unconstitutional.

well ok

There is nothing stopping political parties taking control of those districts- the only reason they don't at the moment is they have no need to

if we have a magic wand we can do a lot

I agree

You just need an independent Judiciary, no longer politicized by a Senate that's no longer subject to populism.

but to declare something unconstitutional you need to stack the court with your ppl

that takes time

do you have a plan to do that?

or are you just saying "we just need to move this mountain 7 km that way!"?

Yes, the Senate provides for the function of approving Judicial appointees.

*approval*

not appointment

That's correct.

so it's still by no means power to do things

it's power to prevent things from occurring

*which is their job*

they are not about changing the status quo

you want to change the status quo

you won't do this by changing the senate (unless you change their prerogatives too)

Well, given they rely on popular elections, they are subject to whatever changes are wished upon that status quo, which is why we have seen their powers shift our country toward directions we don't desire. They have no buffer providing for sovereignty, to act independent of popular opinions which are nearly always flawed and subject to long-term consequences that far out-weigh their immediate gains, and as a result, no longer does the Judiciary.

Sure, but this does not discredit what I said : they wouldn't have the power to change anything *back*. Just to slow down further change.

That was the whole purpose of making them popularly elective over appointive, to subject them to those forces that'd change the status quo, and so far, that's amounted to expansionism and perpetual violations of the values this nation is founded upon.

It does to some extent; they can't propose new legislation, but they can reject it, and by nature of their character change would, over time, ensure we end up with a Judiciary stacked with apolitical and constitutionalist judges, to the extent of textualism, which would guarantee a nearly complete dismantling of the federal government, with much of the previous legislation you're referencing as unalterable becoming subject to judicial review. Also, you're forgetting much of the federal bureaucracy operates on renewal, and thus they're not permanent.

"nature of their character change would, over time, ensure we end up with a Judiciary stacked with apolitical and constitutionalist judges"

no

They can also reject appropriations.

it would just mean the less radical anti-constitutionalists would get accepted

they still don choose the candidates

"Also, you're forgetting much of the federal bureaucracy operates on renewal, and thus they're not permanent."
I'm not forgetting that, I didn't know. Not a Mutt.

That's correct.