Over two hundred years ago, some of the best and the brightest minds in the newly independent United States of America were grappling with the complicated process of writing a national constitution. One of major tasks was to ensure each individual citizen was given equal representation, and that the majority would rule. The House of Representatives would be comprised of duly elected officials, all of which represented the interests of an equal number of people. At that time, many of the residents of the thirteen states were not only concerned with individual rights, but also with “states rights”. In effect, the fear among the Southern states was that a distant, and possibly oppressive, federal government could enact laws that were not in the best interests of their particular region of the country. In order to appease the (primarily) slave-holding states, the framers of the constitution agreed to form a second body within the Legislative Branch that would give equal representation to each state, regardless of the population. The formation of the Senate, as it was called, would ensure that the new Constitution would be ratified by the southern states. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were opposed to creating the Senate, stating that it contradicted the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the majority will rule. As it turned out, they were right.

On many occasions during the brief history of the United States, the Senate has stood in the way of progressive legislation, supported by the majority of Americans. In two particular cases, the abolishment of slavery and the right of women to vote, Senate filibusters delayed the will of the majority from happening for decades. Once again, the will of the majority is being denied by a minority of senators. In this case, the will of the majority is to have health care reform in America.

If, in fact, health care reform is denied the American people by a group of forty, white, rich males in the U.S. Senate, it may be time to think about the legitimacy of the Senate itself, and the function it plays in twenty-first century America. It may be time to re-think the relevancy of the concept of “states rights” in the modern American age. At the local level, the governor and state assemblies are granted powers under the federal constitution to manage their own affairs, so long as they don’t interfere with rights granted under that constitution. When, however, a minority of senators from various states are granted the power to thwart the will of the majority of American people, a line has been crossed that forms a border between good, representative government and gridlock. We must not continue to let that line be crossed.

—Rich