By Earl Taylor, Jr. |

In today’s U.S. Senate, the filibuster has become both a symbol of obstruction and a tool of partisan power. To filibuster is to talk—or threaten to talk—long enough to stall or block legislation. The Constitution itself says nothing about this practice. It merely grants each chamber the power to determine its own rules. Over time, the Senate chose to allow unlimited debate, which can only be ended by invoking cloture—a supermajority vote of 60 senators.

The practical effect is that a minority of just 41 senators can stop the majority from acting. This turns the Founders’ concept of majority rule upside down.

Thomas Jefferson made the principle clear:

“The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis—the law of the greater part—is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal right; to consider the will of the society announced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons of importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learned.”

Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers, warned of the same danger:

“To give a minority a negative upon the majority…is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number.… The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or something approaching towards it…has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

Those who defend the filibuster argue that removing it would allow whichever party holds power to impose its will unchecked. That concern is not unfounded—but it points to a deeper problem, one the Founders themselves addressed. If Americans no longer elect leaders bound by conscience and virtue, no rule or procedure can save the republic.

Benjamin Franklin warned that:

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

And John Adams echoed:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The lesson is timeless: the strength of our institutions depends not on clever procedural devices but on the character of those who serve within them. The filibuster may have evolved into a Senate tradition, but it stands at odds with the Founders’ first principle of republican government—majority rule among a moral and self-governing people.

If we wish to preserve that republic, we should restore the rule of the majority—and the virtue on which it was meant to rest.

Earl Taylor, Jr. is the President of The National Center for Constitutional Studies.