by Earl Taylor | Nov 11, 2025 | Opinion
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.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jun 25, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) that passed the House of Representatives last month contained numerous wins for the American people: permanent tax relief, funding for border security, an expansion of Health Savings Accounts, and even a new program to expand school choice. But arguably the most impactful accomplishment in the BBB was their success in taking a machete to the labyrinth of green new scam tax subsidies created by Joe Biden and the Democrats through the inflation-creating Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). That alone makes it the most beautiful feature of the Big Beautiful Bill.
The House’s version included key provisions sunsetting some of the worst subsidies authorized under the IRA, including:
- Ending the Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for any project that doesn’t start within 60 days of the enacting legislation and isn’t in service by 2028;
- Ending the Clean Electricity Investment Credit and Transferability of Tax Credits for Wind and Solar;
- Eliminating the Tax Credit for Residential Solar and Rebates for “Green” Products;
- Repealing the Electric Vehicle Credit designed to Force Manufacturers to Abandon Gas Powered Vehicles.
The rollback of these subsidies in the House BBB was a monumental feat, especially given the army of lobbyists hired by the green energy grifters to defend these subsidies on Capitol Hill. In fact, the big spenders in the GOP caucus almost succeeded in stopping the subsidy rollback. If not for the stalwart efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and the White House stepping in at the last minute of negotiations, the green scam subsidies would not be on the chopping block.
But now the bill is in the Senate, and the initial draft released of the revised Big Beautiful Bill by Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo is anything but big or beautiful…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 12, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The long-awaited debate for the U.S. Senate Race in Arizona took place on Wednesday between Kari Lake and Congressman Ruben Gallego. And even the most mainstream of outlets took note, or took pains not to note, that Lake outperformed Gallego.
The Associated Press seemed to call out Rep. Gallego’s performance against Lake in a singular headline that read, “Lake’s Comfort And Polish In Front Of The Camera Stood In Contrast To Gallego.”
Jonathan Cooper and Gabriel Sandoval wrote for the wire, “Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake repeatedly reminded viewers Wednesday of her three-decade career on Arizona television, looking to harness the intimate connection she built with voters and overcome Democrat Ruben Gallego’s portrayal of her as a liar in the only debate of the closely watched race.”
“Lake’s comfort and polish in front of the camera stood in contrast to Gallego, a military veteran who occasionally tripped on his words. The hourlong forum, at times caustic and personal, highlighted big differences on immigration, border security, abortion and taxes.”
Detracting from her performance, the outlet noted that Lake didn’t pursue what was potentially the best attack avenue against Gallego far enough. It’s an angle President Trump has levied against Vice President Kamala Harris with great success: citing the Democrats’ current offices and asking why the changes they champion haven’t been made already.
“I haven’t had a vote in this; you’ve had a vote for 10 years,” she said.
The AP observed that Gallego focused on election integrity and Lake’s objection to the 2022 gubernatorial race results, bait that Lake refused to take. However, she did pivot to a strong argument on election integrity that Gallego was poorly equipped to answer.
“You know we’ve had problems across the country since 2000. One year the Democrats are mad, the next year the Republicans are,” Lake began. “We’ve got problems with our elections, and there’s no doubt about it. The people of Arizona have been burned. They’re tired of hearing about hiccups and loopholes and problems that happen on Election Day. We just want to make sure that our legal vote counts!”
She then zeroed in on Gallego: “My opponent wants illegal votes to count! He actually voted twice to have illegals vote. He voted against the SAVE Act, which would prevent illegals from voting. I want every legal vote to count. I don’t care if you are the most liberal Democrat or the most conservative Republican or where most of Arizona is: somewhere in between. I want every legal vote to count.”
Lake offered a solution to the matter of election integrity that will likely resonate with beleaguered Arizona voters fed-up with election-day mishaps for over a decade. “My solution would be: let’s get back to something closer to what we used to have: Election day, paper ballots, and we know the results right there on the night of the election. But we definitely can’t have people pouring across our country illegally voting. Not only does he want to let them vote, he wants to give them all asylum, and we’ve got to stop this nonsense at the border and restore our country.”
Even AZCentral, an outlet that has often proven openly hostile to Lake, seemed to de facto concede that Lake, in her confrontational, ‘take-no-prisoners’ debate style, successfully steamrolled Gallego. Bill Goodykoontz wrote in an editorial, “She followed the debate tactics (of) Donald Trump (her ‘good friend,’ she said) and repeatedly went over her time limit and talked over Gallego, often resorting to personal attacks. It was ugly. And she got away with it.”
Goodykoontz observed that though Gallego didn’t take the bait, he “didn’t respond as forcefully as he might have.” Further, Lake from the start, sought to classify Gallego as the “extreme makeover” candidate by drawing stark contrasts between his current talking points and his congression record, in lockstep with the Biden-Harris administration.
“Ruben Gallego has supported — every step of the way — Kamala Harris, the border czar, and Joe Biden’s open border,” she said.
While the New York Times’ Kellen Browning assessed that the debate may not have been a “knock out blow” to Gallego, the momentum generated by a dominant debate performance could move Lake back into striking distance of her opponent.
In polling per FiveThirtyEight, Gallego achieved several breakaways, carrying him into double digits over Lake, the most recent at the end of September. But in the past week, he has begun to hemorrhage his lead again from thirteen points in September, back down to seven. Should the cycle the two candidates have been locked in for months repeat, it will find Lake likely within margin of error by election day, if not overtaking the Democrat.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Seth Leibsohn | Feb 28, 2024 | Opinion
By Seth Leibsohn |
Editor’s Note: This column was co-authored by Dean Riesen and Steve Twist.
As we are now in high political season, we propose a thought experiment before too many decisions are frozen in amber too early on. For Republicans and Independents, and even Democrats whose fond memories of the party run back to the ideals of the 1960s: How extreme is it to support a strengthened and secured U.S. border to keep dangerous people and products from flowing into the country?
A few more questions to satisfy the experiment: How ideal would it be for the United States to be energy independent? Who among any of us does not want to see our homeless population housed, free of addiction, and treated of their mental health issues? Who among us does not think that for the $900 billion Americans spend on elementary and secondary education, our scores and achievement levels should be much higher? Who here thinks the drug poisoning problem—at historically record highs—cannot be addressed and reversed? Who among us thinks our deficits and government spending priorities are keeping us on the track of economic prosperity and financial health?
Nearly any candidate that shares the obvious answers to the foregoing questions would be the kind of candidate nearly every Republican, Independent, and commonsense Democrat would take seriously and support. Especially against someone who answers each of those questions wrongly.
Now make the candidate who got the answers right a possible United States Senator in a nearly evenly divided United States Senate where the right answers to those questions have been frustrated and opposed by the modern Democratic Party.
The candidate who gets the answers to the commonsense questions above right is Kari Lake. While we did not support her in the primary in 2022, we have zero problem supporting her for the Senate seat she is running for today, here, in Arizona.
For those who disagree with some of her previous quips and misstatements, we urge thinking about any candidate who never uttered misstatements or mistaken views here and there. That candidate does not exist.
But, what you will find in Kari Lake is someone running hard against a representative and supporter of the values of today’s Democratic Party.
And that party has a Governor in Arizona that has called Republicans neo-Nazis. It is a party that turns a blind eye and deaf ear toward rioting and elevated to Vice President someone who encouraged such rioting and helped bail out the rioters. It is a party that nominates and defends Justices to the Supreme Court who will not answer the question “What is a woman?” It is a party that supports efforts to encourage children to physically change their biological sex and supports concealing those efforts from their parents.
Today’s Democratic Party is a party that believes 1776 was not our founding date and a party that believes people should be judged for the most sublime positions, privileges, and immunities based on their most crude characteristics, like their race, rather than their most refined and human characteristics, like their brains and their morality.
It is a party that supports the legalization of dangerous drugs and a party that thinks it just fine to teach 5-year-olds age-inappropriate lessons and behaviors. It is a party that believes it OK for men to compete in women’s sports and for men to enter and use women’s bathrooms and showers and locker rooms at every age.
Today’s Democratic Party is a party that shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars to the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world while it thinks we should create another official carbon copy of Iran or Syria in the Middle East, while, at the same time, stripping the rights and power of the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East.
Today’s Democratic Party is a party that wants to secure other nations’ borders with weapons and taxpayer dollars but does not want to protect its own border. It is a party that wants to strip First and Second Amendment rights from law-abiding Americans but wants to elevate the rights of violent criminals above those of their victims.
Finally, as we view possible scenarios that could include a Democrat in the White House, a small Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, and a Senator Ruben Gallego as part of a one-seat majority in the Senate, the following could be enacted within six months: 1) Elimination of the filibuster, 2) Appointment to the Supreme Court of four left-wing Justices, 3) Admission of Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. as states, giving the Democrats a lock on the U.S. Senate with four additional Democrat senators, and, 4) An open U. S. border with unlimited immigration, and citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. This platform is what is “extreme,” by any definition.
We can rest on our own self-important codes of personal distaste for a candidate that stands athwart all this and abstain supporting her, or we can get over statements made in the past that, to borrow from Thomas Jefferson, “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg,” and get serious about defeating a much greater threat than one to our own moral superiorities; the greatest of threats to the greatest of nations. Ours. If one cares about something greater than their own self-interest, and if that “something” is this country, we ask you to support Kari Lake, as we are. Her opponent, after all, answers wrongly all the questions we raise above and supports the nightmare agenda we raise here. A vote against Kari Lake, just as a decision not to vote for or support her, is a vote for all that. Those who take their Republican Party, and this country, seriously, cannot allow that to happen.
Originally published at Townhall.com.
Seth Leibsohn is a radio host and author, Dean Riesen is the Chairman of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Steve Twist is a lawyer in Scottsdale.
by Corinne Murdock | Feb 24, 2024 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) hasn’t filed a statement of interest to run yet, which means she hasn’t started gathering the tens of thousands of signatures she will need to appear on the ballot.
The lack of action on Sinema’s part raises further doubt that she plans to seek reelection, since the deadline for signature collections is April 1. That’s about five weeks away.
State law requires candidates to file their statement of interest prior to collecting signatures for ballot qualification. As an independent, Sinema would need a minimum of 42,300 signatures to qualify for the general election ballot.
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-03) is seeking the Democratic nomination, while former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb seek the Republican nomination.
Sinema’s failure to file for reelection may relate to the House GOP’s recent rejection of her $118 billion foreign aid bill. Although Sinema and others described the legislation widely as a “border bill,” it allotted a mere 17 percent of funds for border security. $60 billion of the funds were allotted for relief for Ukraine, with the remainder set aside for Israel and other foreign countries.
The bill was a tripartisan effort between Sinema, Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, and Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy.
In addition to border funding making up a minority of the $118 billion bill, GOP leadership contested the proposed border security provisions, such as enabling the president to override the bill’s automatic shutdown on migrant entry.
That automatic shutdown would occur should an average of 5,000 illegal crossings occur over a period of seven consecutive days. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could also implement the shutdown with an average of 4,000 illegal crossings over a period of seven consecutive days.
The shutdown would conclude after two weeks of border crossings falling below the 4,000-5,000 threshold. This authority would also be limited to 270 days in the first year, and even less days in the following two years. However, that closure could be reversed should the president declare a “national interest” in keeping the border open.
In the 2023 fiscal year, there were over 2.5 million illegal immigrant encounters. That’s an average of over 6,800 illegal immigrant encounters a day.
Sinema insisted that her foreign aid bill would have solved the border crisis.
“My border bill would have prevented these closures and solved the crisis – but partisans decided not to secure the border,” said Sinema.
Brian Anderson, founder of the political consultant firm Saguaro Group, said that it was the foreign aid bill’s failure that confirmed this to be the end of the line for Sinema.
“The recent border bill was going to be Sinema’s last ‘hurrah.’ It was her way of proving to voters that she’s a deal-maker and the platform from which she’d launch her reelect,” said Anderson. “But everyone saw the border bill for what it was: All surface, no substance, just like Sinema — and luckily it died on the vine just like her campaign should.”
Anderson added that the Democrats were “out of their mind” for alienating Sinema in favor of Gallego: a choice he says is favorable for the GOP in the race, should they play their cards right.
“She rubber-stamped virtually every agenda item on their docket while masquerading as a moderate with the best PR game on that side of the aisle, yet they decided to replace her with a four feet, two inches-high hothead with a history of unseemly behavior,” said Anderson. “If Republicans can’t manage to win a two-way race here, we have no one to blame but ourselves.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
