By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor
As has periodically been the case, a heated controversy has arisen in the nation’s capital over whether the U.S. Senate should abolish the filibuster. The filibuster is a Senate rule requiring 60 votes — a three-fifths majority — to cut off debate and bring legislation to a final vote. (Before 1975, the filibuster required a two-thirds majority to cut off debate, or invoke “cloture.”) In 2017, the Senate eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees and federal appointments but kept it for legislation.
This was a wise decision, because unlike a legislative bill, a nominee cannot be partially confirmed — senators must either confirm or reject the nominee as a whole.
Why should the Senate retain the filibuster for legislation? At first glance, it seems to be a significant hindrance to government efficiency. That is precisely the point. The entire U.S. Constitution, under which the country has operated since 1788, is a monument to governmental “inefficiency.”
It is called the “balance of power” among the three branches of government — the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Unlike other revolutions of the age, namely the French Revolution, America’s Founding Fathers believed in the sinfulness of man. They believed governments, composed of men, would seek to gather ever greater power unto themselves and would need to be checked. So they created three branches of government that would check each other in the gathering of that power.
Over the course of our history, the ensuing 238 years have been a struggle for supremacy among the three branches, with different branches more successful at different times.
One of the prime authors of the Constitution was John Adams, who probably had more influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution than anyone other than George Washington. Adams was vice president under Washington from 1789 to 1797 and president from 1797 to 1801. In the 1780s, while serving as a diplomat in France, Adams had written an entire encyclopedia of republican governments, beginning with Greece and Rome. Consequently, he had an “encyclopedic” knowledge of the successes and failures of America’s republican predecessors and sought to have America benefit from their mistakes.
Another issue separating the American Constitution from democracy — direct rule of the majority — was the very real concern of the smaller states that they would be swallowed up in a federal government by a few large states that would dwarf their influence if representation were based solely on population. (For instance, four of the first five presidents were from one state — Virginia.)
Thus, the “Connecticut Compromise” was born. Congress — the legislative branch — would be composed of two chambers: the House of Representatives, based on population, and the Senate, with each state having two senators regardless of population. Without the Connecticut Compromise, it is doubtful the federal Constitution would have been ratified by the required number of states. And until 1914, senators from each state were not directly elected by popular vote but were chosen by state legislatures.
Our forefathers were very wary of aggregations of government power, and the constitutional division of powers is a monument to their wisdom and concern. Another genuflection in the direction of that fear of simple majority rule with insufficient protections for minority viewpoints and rights — along with the Bill of Rights, the Constitution’s first 10 amendments — has been the continuation of the filibuster.
In the past few days, former Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., have publicly voiced strong support for retaining the filibuster.
There is a story, now more than a century and a half old, that Thomas Jefferson, having just returned from Europe, asked George Washington over breakfast why the government needed a Senate as well as a House. Washington asked Jefferson, “Why did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking?”
“To cool it,” Jefferson replied, “my throat is not made of brass.”
“Even so,” replied Washington, “we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”1
This persistent myth may be apocryphal. However, like many such stories, if it is not true, it should be because it grasps and illustrates the essential genius of the filibuster.
- Moncure D. Conway, “Republican Superstitions as Illustrated in the Political History of America” (London, 1872); Thomas Wentworth Higginson, “The Birth of a Nation,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 68, no. 4 (1884): 242.
Dr. Richard Land, BA (Princeton, magna cum laude); D.Phil. (Oxford); Th.M (New Orleans Seminary). Dr. Land served as President of Southern Evangelical Seminary from July 2013 until July 2021. Upon his retirement, he was honored as President Emeritus and he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor of Theology & Ethics. Dr. Land previously served as President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) where he was also honored as President Emeritus upon his retirement. Dr. Land has also served as an Executive Editor and columnist for The Christian Post since 2011.
Dr. Land explores many timely and critical topics in his daily radio feature, “Bringing Every Thought Captive,” and in his weekly column for CP.
