<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Change  Senate Rules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.opa-opines.net/2009/12/12/change-senate-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.opa-opines.net/2009/12/12/change-senate-rules/</link>
	<description>Just another DreamHost WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:47:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hotel executive</title>
		<link>http://blog.opa-opines.net/2009/12/12/change-senate-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-6051</link>
		<dc:creator>Hotel executive</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:42:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.opa-opines.net/?p=334#comment-6051</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The Constitution very carefully set up a system to protect rights and potential problems seen at the time it was first adopted.  Among those ideas was the concept of balancing power.  No state or group of states could take over power simply because they were bigger and had more population.  To guard against total rule by the populous states, the Senate was created with each state having two votes.  That lead to some balance.  The large population states could pass a law that was harmful to the small population states, but it would be reversed in the Senate.  Good idea &#8211; balance. &lt;/i&gt;
+1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The Constitution very carefully set up a system to protect rights and potential problems seen at the time it was first adopted.  Among those ideas was the concept of balancing power.  No state or group of states could take over power simply because they were bigger and had more population.  To guard against total rule by the populous states, the Senate was created with each state having two votes.  That lead to some balance.  The large population states could pass a law that was harmful to the small population states, but it would be reversed in the Senate.  Good idea &#8211; balance. </i><br />
+1</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keri Wyatt Kent</title>
		<link>http://blog.opa-opines.net/2009/12/12/change-senate-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-4539</link>
		<dc:creator>Keri Wyatt Kent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:55:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.opa-opines.net/?p=334#comment-4539</guid>
		<description>Hi 
thanks for your kind review of my book on amazon. we are doing a blog tour (where bloggers post reviews, interviews, etc.) and I wondered if you would like to participate? We&#039;d be glad to send you a book which you can give away to one of your readers.
thanks
Keri Wyatt Kent
author, Simple Compassion</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi<br />
thanks for your kind review of my book on amazon. we are doing a blog tour (where bloggers post reviews, interviews, etc.) and I wondered if you would like to participate? We&#8217;d be glad to send you a book which you can give away to one of your readers.<br />
thanks<br />
Keri Wyatt Kent<br />
author, Simple Compassion</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Opa</title>
		<link>http://blog.opa-opines.net/2009/12/12/change-senate-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-4496</link>
		<dc:creator>Opa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.opa-opines.net/?p=334#comment-4496</guid>
		<description>Larry, 

Of course you are right, there are many concepts not mentioned in the Constitution.  So what?  If any action or inaction results in lower civil rights, the courts can declare it not constitutional.  If any such action prevents  what we now need to secure individual rights, property, or liberty, then we are expected to fight the action and pass a law or ask for court interpretation.    

The Constitution very carefully set up a system to protect rights and potential problems seen at the time it was first adopted.  Among those ideas was the concept of balancing power.  No state or group of states could take over power simply because they were bigger and had more population.  To guard against total rule by the populous states, the Senate was created with each state having two votes.  That lead to some balance.  The large population states could pass a law that was harmful to the small population states, but it would be reversed in the Senate.  Good idea - balance. 

Now we have the Senate, already powerful for the small population states, inventing rules that upset the balance.  The smallest 16 states with less than 20 percent of the population can prevent the biggest 26 states with over 60 percent of the population from acting for their people.  This &quot;abuse&quot; was never intended.  Majority rule is a rule for a reason.   What we now have is the tyranny of the minority.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Larry, </p>
<p>Of course you are right, there are many concepts not mentioned in the Constitution.  So what?  If any action or inaction results in lower civil rights, the courts can declare it not constitutional.  If any such action prevents  what we now need to secure individual rights, property, or liberty, then we are expected to fight the action and pass a law or ask for court interpretation.    </p>
<p>The Constitution very carefully set up a system to protect rights and potential problems seen at the time it was first adopted.  Among those ideas was the concept of balancing power.  No state or group of states could take over power simply because they were bigger and had more population.  To guard against total rule by the populous states, the Senate was created with each state having two votes.  That lead to some balance.  The large population states could pass a law that was harmful to the small population states, but it would be reversed in the Senate.  Good idea &#8211; balance. </p>
<p>Now we have the Senate, already powerful for the small population states, inventing rules that upset the balance.  The smallest 16 states with less than 20 percent of the population can prevent the biggest 26 states with over 60 percent of the population from acting for their people.  This &#8220;abuse&#8221; was never intended.  Majority rule is a rule for a reason.   What we now have is the tyranny of the minority.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://blog.opa-opines.net/2009/12/12/change-senate-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-4389</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.opa-opines.net/?p=334#comment-4389</guid>
		<description>The party in power is afraid to change the rules because they may gain be the minority party and won&#039;t want the majority to ram something down their throat simply because they have more votes.   Do Senate rules trump the Constitution?  Of course, nothing says the Senate can&#039;t have rules.  The Constitution is so non-specific that it really doesn&#039;t say how the government will operate.   There is no Cabinet in the Constitution and it doesn&#039;t say how large the Supreme Court shall be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The party in power is afraid to change the rules because they may gain be the minority party and won&#8217;t want the majority to ram something down their throat simply because they have more votes.   Do Senate rules trump the Constitution?  Of course, nothing says the Senate can&#8217;t have rules.  The Constitution is so non-specific that it really doesn&#8217;t say how the government will operate.   There is no Cabinet in the Constitution and it doesn&#8217;t say how large the Supreme Court shall be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
