The United States Constitution did not create the filibuster. The practice exists entirely because of Senate rules and precedents developed over time.
From early in the Senate’s history, the ability of Senators to speak for unlimited amounts of time was used as a tool to slow down legislation, as a bargaining chip to gain concessions on bills, or to block bills altogether. This extended use of “debate” became known as a filibuster.
For decades, there was talk about changing the Senate rules to limit debate, but nothing was done until 1917. During the administration of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, creating a process known as “cloture.” Under the original rule, debate could be cut off by a two-thirds supermajority of senators present and voting. The cloture vote was used only 5 times over the next 40 years.
In 1975, the Senate changed the rule from requiring a 2/3 supermajority of senators voting to end debate to a 3/5 supermajority of all senators correctly chosen and sworn in. A cloture vote to limit debate has come to require 60 votes.
The use of the filibuster, limited by a cloture vote, has become increasingly common over time. It has become the primary legislative tool for the party in the Senate minority to stop controversial bills.
The Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority vote. When the Democratic Party controlled the Senate in 2013, Majority Leader Harry Reid orchestrated a rule change to exempt votes of all nominees except for the Supreme Court from the 60-vote requirement for cloture. When the Republicans took control of the Senate, they expanded the exemption to include all nominees.
Currently, a vote to stop debate in the Senate requires 60 votes for legislation. An exemption exists for budget reconciliation, as required in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974. Limits on the time for debate are included in the act, which prevents a filibuster.
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - JHP - 1000 | True Shot Ammo | $ 487.44 |
|
|
CCI Blazer 9mm Luger Ammo 115gr FMJ 50 Rounds | GunMag Warehouse | $ 12.99 |
|
|
CCI Blazer Brass 9mm Luger Ammo 124gr FMJ 50 Rounds | GunMag Warehouse | $ 12.99 |
|
|
CCI Blazer Brass 9mm Luger Ammo 115 Grain FMJ - 50 Rounds | Primary Arms | $ 14.99 |
|
The Filibuster and Gun Legislation
The filibuster has been used to stop and slow down gun control legislation and to stop and slow down legislation to restore Second Amendment rights. Notably, the filibuster does not appear to have been used in attempts to block the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
However, the Brady Act of 1993 was slowed by the use of the filibuster, but was not stopped. The Universal Background Check gun control bill promoted by President Barack Obama in 2013 failed to overcome a filibuster by Republicans. The vote was 54-46.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 had to overcome a filibuster. Cloture passed with 65 votes. It was a relatively weak bill.
More recently, in 2025, the removal of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and Any Other Weapons (AOW) was stymied because of the inability of Second Amendment supporters to overcome a Democratic Party filibuster.
Internal Senate Debate Over the Filibuster
The filibuster is a powerful tool to slow legislation, facilitate compromise, and limit governmental action. Support for the filibuster by Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia has been credited with preventing draconian measures proposed by far-left Democratic politicians in 2021. Both Sinema and Manchin were ousted from the Democratic Party, in part for their support of the filibuster.
President Trump has previously called for Republican Senators to eliminate the filibuster. His logic is clear: the next time Democratic politicians control the Senate, they will eliminate the filibuster. Republicans should pre-emptively do so in order to pass legislation to cement the Trumpian counter-revolution against radical leftism.
Last year, President Trump wanted to eliminate the filibuster to end the government shutdown. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin explains this. From newsmax.com:
“The Democrats purged the last two senators who held out and supported the filibuster,” he said. “We know they have no respect for it. So we need to strike first.”
Johnson said if Republicans move first, it should be “for the benefit of the American people.”
“When the Democrats eliminate the filibuster, it’ll all be about their maintenance of power,” he said.
“If we’re to do it, it will be to further secure our border, to secure our elections, and to pass good pieces of legislation,” Johnson added.
He also warned Democrats would “pack the Supreme Court” and push for statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico if they regain control of the Senate.
Senate Structure and Long-Term Considerations
The Senate has two senators for each state. For decades, far more Democratic Senators than seemed warranted came from what were expected to be “conservative” states such as Montana and North Dakota. In the last 20 years, states have tended to sort themselves out more consistently. This is likely because the left no longer has unquestioned dominance in the media. Conservative dominance in the Senate seems probable in the future.
The Republicans have both senators in the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump in all three of his presidential elections. This makes it very difficult for the Democratic Party to control Congress. The Senate was designed to protect small states from being made politically irrelevant by large-population states. Control of the Senate by the Democratic Party could potentially be diminished for at least a few years.
Legislation is important, but court decisions tend to be more durable. It is harder to overcome Supreme Court decisions than to pass legislation. The protection of the filibuster is less important if the Supreme Court has an originalist majority, such as currently exists.
Packing of the Supreme Court has been supported by the Democratic Party to overcome the originalist majority. To do this, they need control of Congress. They need to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. They can eliminate the filibuster anytime they have a majority in the Senate, so continuing the filibuster is not much of a protection against radical leftists. As Sinema and Manchin demonstrated, it has some value.
A Difficult Tradeoff
If the Senate Republicans eliminate the filibuster, they open the door to passing more of President Trump’s agenda. The potential for pro-Second Amendment legislation to pass increases somewhat.
Is that potential worth the loss of the protections of a filibuster?
This correspondent tends to approve of limitations on government power. Limitations that are only applied to Republicans are worse than no limitations. It is a close call. This correspondent would keep the filibuster in hopes the radical left Democratic party is rejected by voters, at least in the Senate.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Harry Reid ignored the advice of his Democratic senator friends and changed Senate rules to advance Obama’s agenda and seat Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court. Then the Democrats lost their majority.
What they then found was that whatever slight of hand and questionable tricks you use for temporary advantage will be used against you when the wind inevitably blows from the other direction.
Commiecrats are the principal proponents of eliminating the filibuster. That alone is enough to convince me we MUST hang on to the filibuster! No short-term partisan gain is worth the risk of long-term hazard to our inalienable Rights!
The Senate can not even get rid of the obstructionists Senate Parliamentarian, much less the filibuster rule. I hate to say it but, we need more repub Senators.
The filibuster is unquestionably a two edged sword. I say keep it; it is a safeguard. Better to eliminate Rule 22, cloture. A quick vote on cloture or even a nose count kills a bill and that is rarely in the news. Make the obstructionist(s), justifiable in cause or not, work for blocking a bill. Let the world know who is halting progress and give constituents time and reason to call their legislators.
One of the main components that makes our Constitutional Republic superior to a Democracy is that changes are slow and dificult to make.
“governments… should not be changed for light and transient causes”
Almost every problem a law or government agency was created to solve, has been made worse, and given a little more time would have been corrected by free markets, private or religious institiutions.
“Nescessity is the plea for every infringment of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
William Pitt
Leave the filibuster in place.
Make the Demoncraps actually stand there and verbally support their “position”.
No more just saying “we filibuster this so you’ve gotta have 3/5’s or 60 votes to cancel our filibuster”.
Make them talk.
Until they drop.
Then have a vote (which only requires a simple majority to pass).
Let the people hear their specious arguments out loud.
Make the repubs be ready and available to vote when they stop.
It’s what we pay them for.
Have a Good Day
Democrats will end the filibuster the moment they gain power to do so. We should end it now, abolish/ end the NFA, BATFE, financial support for the UN, all forms of welfare and foreign aid (all are unconstitutional and the latter three are also at least half wasted on corruption and fraud).
If and when democrats ever attempt to pack the Supreme Court (add seats to the bench to change its ideological balance) if successful, the time will have come for bonafide, armed, bloody, revolution!