The filibuster arose in 1806 - I assure you many of the founding fathers were still alive.
I just want to say, I appreciate the discussion. It's been civil and thought provoking, quite the change from the norm on JPP.
I don't want to beat this to death, but I accurately described how the filibuster came about. It was not debated as a way to assure 'checks and balances', nobody talked about it at all. It was a big fat oppsie, a mistake while cleaning up a bunch of redundant rules. They were breathing when that mistake was made, but they didn't breathe a word about it.
So yes, Jefferson and Adams died in 1826, so they were alive in 1806, when the filibuster, not yet known as such came into being because some rules were eliminated. They had nothing to do with those rule changes. No records show they spoke about it. They never used the word 'filibuster,' or discussed how great unlimited debates would be, which arose decades later, after they checked out. I don't know where you get information that suggests they wanted it, knew about it, and gave their blessing, but I surely can't find it.
They supported ample debate and minority voice in discussion, but favored majority rule for passing bills, not minority veto power. It's important to remember, the filibuster is not about passing a bill or not passing a bill, it is a tactic to block ending debate, creating a de facto 60-vote threshold. The Founders designed a representative republic with majority voting in Congress, plus checks like bicameralism and the presidential veto. If they agreed with what you suggest they did, they would have simply insisted on a 60 vote threshold to pass a bill or whatever percentage they thought was necessary to 'protect the minority', the ones that lost the elections.
Again, I can't stress this enough, the filibuster arose accidentally that year when the Senate dropped the previous question motion during routine rule cleanup, not by design or with Founders' endorsement. No debate about it, not papers written about it, nothing. Please provide any direct quotes from any founder supporting anything that allows endless debate to stop a vote from taking place. That's a sincere request, not being a smart ass, I just can't find any.
The need for the filibuster is because democrats are NOT reasonable and the GOP has spent most of the last century in the minority. Staving off complete ruin of the nation using the filibuster.
This is the big lie, it keeps the filibuster alive. If we don't have it, they'll go crazy. We stopped them so many times with the filibuster, we can't lose it. In my opinion, that's simply wrong, we can't predict how votes would've gone. Every vote that passes or doesn't pass has the filibuster baked in the cake. In other words, it would be foolish to suggest Senator's votes would be the same if the filibuster didn't exist. The political calculations completely change in a major way. I would suggest that many of those bills would not have been proposed at all. It's impossible to predict the outcome now. But, we do know that no longer would they be able to tell us how hard they worked to get it done but that damn filibuster stopped us. 'Didn't you see how close the vote was, we really wanted it, shucks.' That was perfected through the years by both parties. In fact, I would bet it was intentionally orchestrated by party leaders working together prior to the votes. Granted, this is all just my opinion, but I thought I'd share.
The Virginia legislature, which a great many, Washington and Jefferson included heralded from adopted filibuster as a rule in 1789. They were well aware of the mechanism and practice. Hamilton wrote in opposition of the filibuster in the Federalist Papers.
I really have no idea where you're getting this. The only reference to anything like a filibuster in 1789 was Senator Maclay complaining about the opposition 'talking away the time' in his diary. There wasn't a formal rule he was complaining about. I can't find Either Washington or Jefferson praising anything like the filibuster either.
@Grok (just the short summary at the end of a very detailed answer I got when I pasted your comment after asking if this was true. If you want more detail just paste your comment in Grok and see for yourself. I also checked with a source I got hooked on when researching this and other topics. constitutioncenter.org)
- The **U.S. Senate** (not Virginia legislature) saw early delaying tactics in 1789, including Virginians "talking away the time" on Sept. 22 to block a bill—practiced by some Virginia-linked senators, but **not adopted as a formal rule** by the Virginia legislature.
- Washington and Jefferson knew parliamentary debate but did not "adopt filibuster as a rule" in Virginia in 1789 (Jefferson was in France until late 1789; Washington was president). The modern filibuster emerged later, accidentally after 1806.
- **Hamilton opposed supermajority/minority veto** tactics in Federalist No. 22, calling them a "poison" that lets a minority block the majority—often cited against the filibuster. He did not specifically name "filibuster" (a later term).
I also thought you might find this interesting as well. It shows how the filibusters usage rose right along the Senate's moral decline. They've got away with it for many years, but a complete collapse of morals and the presence of actual enemies within our government including Congress, has brought this long-time scam out in the open. Many are questioning it, for good reason.
Founders favored simple majority rule for all legislation with exceptions that are spelled out in the Constitution. My final and possibly most compelling reason for killing the filibuster is very simple. It was not spelled out in the Constitution. If they believed in some level of a supermajority needed to advance a bill through the Senate to save us for an out of control majority, they would have written it in the Constitution from day one. They didn't because it would be giving the losers the power of a presidential veto, and that was never intended.
Here's how the usage increased through the years. It tells a story of a Senate in crisis.
| Pre-Cloture | 1789–1916 | 6–23 (est.) | <0.2 | Baseline |
| Early Cloture | 1917–1970 | 58 | ~1 | — |
| Post-Reform Rise | 1971–1992 | 425 | ~19 | 19× |
| Polarization | 1993–2012 | 894 | ~45 | 2.4× |
| Modern Explosion | 2013–2026 | 1,748+ | ~125 | 2.8× |
