The Senate Filibuster: The Politics of Obstruction — Emmet J. Bondurant (2011)

In this article, Emmet Bondurant argues that the Senate filibuster is neither constitutionally required nor intended by the Framers. Examining its history, constitutional text, and court precedents, he contends that the filibuster is unconstitutional and should be invalidated by the courts.

1. The filibuster was never intended by the Framers and arose by historical accident.

2. The Constitution is founded on majority rule, but the filibuster gives the minority veto power.

3. The filibuster violates the Constitution despite the Senate’s authority to make its own rules.

4. The filibuster conflicts with multiple provisions of the Constitution.

5. The Senate cannot realistically abolish the filibuster itself because the rules entrench it.

6. Federal courts have both the authority and the duty to rule on the filibuster’s constitutionality.

7. The Supreme Court should declare the filibuster unconstitutional.

🧠 Conclusion: What assumptions does this article challenge, and what does it show?

Bondurant challenges the assumption that the Senate filibuster is a legitimate constitutional tradition created by the Framers.

Instead, he argues it arose by historical accident, contradicts the Constitution’s commitment to majority rule, and has evolved into a system that allows a minority to routinely block the will of the majority.

Because the Senate’s own rules make meaningful reform extremely difficult, he concludes that the Supreme Court should declare the filibuster unconstitutional and restore the Constitution’s original framework for lawmaking.