It is a proceedural matter and the Senate could easily change the rules if it wanted to do so. It does not do so because both parties are minorities at times and want to prevent “Tyranny of the Majority.” It is a wise to preserve it. If a bill cannot muster 60% of the votes, it is probably a weak Bill.

I do not understand why you so object to this minority right protection and yet you say you support the concept.

Support for the legislation is up three percentage points from a week ago. However, last week’s results were the lowest level of support ever recorded for the plan. With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the number who favor it.

I don’t see that the majority of Americans want national health care at all, and I believe that forcing Americans to buy health insurance is a violation of the constitution. Despite the idea that we are a majority rules kind of society we also need to remember that need to protect our constitutional rights. Many people argued that prayer in school should continue because it served the majority, yet the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional because it violated the rights of individuals. It’s a tricky line between what best serves the majority versus protecting the rights of minorities whether we share their views or not.

We’re a diverse nation, which I have seen first hand having lived coast to coast, North to South and smack in the middle. States both large and small have values that they hold dearly that need to be protected too.

Well said Rich!

As I remember it, in his Virginia plan, Madison supported a bicameral congress with upper and lower houses. The upper house being elected by the lower house. And the Executive branch (the President) would be elected by Congress—not the people. Would you prefer this type of Republican government? The compromise we ended with was a perfect balance between states (Like Rhode Island which was not a slave holding state) that didn’t want to give up all of their rights to a powerful national government led by the most populous states and a national government that had some power. Madison understood that popular majority rule could be just as tyrannical as a monarchy and he was not against “states rights.” But he was against slavery.

As far as States Rights are concerned. Some of the principles that this country was founded on was the concept of the rights, freedoms and democratic governance of sovereign states. Much is written about “states rights” and its tie to southern slave states–and this is supposed to tarnish the idea of “states rights” as backward, cruel or a support of slavery. But its conveniently forgotten that New England states regularly claimed “states rights” and threatened succession during the early 19th century. Many surrounding state courts agreed with New England’s claims against the Federal government. When states like Wisconsin claimed “states rights” and refused to abide by a federal law to send back escaped slaves back to their masters, it was the federal courts and the powers of the Federal government that forced the state of Wisconsin to comply. Strange that those episodes of American history are never mentioned when “states rights” are brought up.