David Barton

After attempting to take control of the rest of Central America and receiving no support from the U.S. government, he was defeated and eventually executed by the local he tried to overthrow.

The three most prominent filibusters of that era were Walker, Narcisco Lopez, and John Quitman. Some would also apply the term to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The actions of the filibusters is what led to the name being applied figuratively to the political act of filibustering in the U.S. Senate.

From: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as “cloture.” The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles.

Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Under this rule, if only 41 of the 100 senators oppose a measure, it will not be brought to the floor for a vote. This is the same practice which our Framers deliberately rejected and intentionally excluded from our constitutional form of government. And logically so, for if 59 Senators support a measure and only 41 oppose it, under the Senate rules, the 41 are declared the winners, thus violating the Framers “fundamental principle of the Constitution.” (Imagine! A rule that gives two-fifths greater power than three-fifths!)

Many Senators attempt to excuse this practice by claiming that the rule provides a protection for the minority, but eliminating the rule would neither violate nor endanger any minority rights. The Framers, through the constitutional guarantee of free speech, ensured that every minority view had opportunity to be expressed. Every individual in the minority has an equal right to attempt to persuade the majority to its point of view (or portions of its views) in the majority’s policies. However, equal right is not the same as equal power; and the minority is never the equivalent of the majority and, constitutionally speaking, is never to exercise control over it. This is a sacrosanct constitutional doctrine regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats (or any other party) hold power; constitutional integrity must always trump political machinations.

George Washington also recognized that sometimes good does come from ignoring fundamental principles, but he nevertheless warned: [T]hough this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. Ignoring or altering fundamental principles may occasionally result in something beneficial, but the more numerous harmful effects will almost certainly outweigh and overcome any favorable effects.

A filibuster is a private individual who engages in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country, often with the intent of overthrowing the existing government. By extension the term also refers to the actions undertaken by a filibuster. The term filibuster and the variant “freebooter” are also applied more generally to individuals who attack foreign lands or interests for financial gain, without authority from their own government.

The term came into English from the Spanish filibustero (meaning pirate or buccaneer, and ultimately coming from the Dutch vrijbuiter) and was first applied to persons raiding Spanish colonies and ships in the West Indies, the most famous of which was Sir Francis Drake with his 1573 raid on Nombre de Dios. With the end of the era of Caribbean piracy in the early 18th century the term fell out of general currency.

The term was revived in the mid 19th century to describe the actions of Anglo-American adventurers who tried to take control of various Caribbean and Mexican territories by force of arms. The filibustering of Spanish and Mexican Texas was accomplished by gradual settlement over more than three decades. It culminated in the successful Texas Revolution of 1836 and the subsequent Texas Annexation to the United States. The “Bear Flag Revolt”, which proclaimed the California Republic at the outset of the Mexican-American War, is sometimes described as a filibustering operation.

Later in the 1850s, William Walker attempted to duplicate the success of the Texans with a strategy involving his leading a private mercenary army. In 1853, he unsuccessfully attempted to stage an insurrection in the Mexican states of Sonora and Baja California. Later, when a path through Lake Nicaragua was being considered as the possible site of a canal through Central America, he was hired as a mercenary by one of the factions in a civil war in Nicaragua. In 1856 he declared himself commander of the country’s army and soon after President of the Republic.

Significantly, the Founding Fathers had considered requiring a two-thirds rather than a majority vote for the passage of legislation, but adamantly rejected that idea. Why? Because under such a policy, one-third of the body would hold veto power over the two-thirds, thus violating the fundamental principle of the Constitution. As George Washington explained:

[F]or if the minority – and a small one too – are suffered to dictate to the majority after measures have undergone the most solemn discussions by the representatives of the people and their will through this medium is entered into a law, there can be no security for life, liberty, or property; . . . there was never a law yet made, I conceive, that hit the taste exactly of every man or every part of the community. James Madison also explained in Federalist 58 why a two-thirds approval margin for normal laws had been rejected:

In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. . . . [who] might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal [good], or . . . to extort unreasonable indulgences [advantages and favors].

Alexander Hamilton likewise noted in Federalist 75:

[A]ll provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government, and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority. . . . If two thirds of the whole number of members had been required, it would, in many cases, . . . amount in practice to a necessity of unanimity. And the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder. (Similar quotes appear in Federalist 39 and Federalist 51.)

Yet might not some good be achieved by requiring a two-thirds margin to move a measure through the legislature? Yes, undoubtedly some good would occur; and some bad measures might indeed be stopped. James Madison acknowledged this fact in Federalist 58, but explained why that policy had nevertheless been rejected: It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required. . . . That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution cannot be denied. . . . But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.

What is your schedule like? How often and where you speak?

The answer to this question is somewhat covered above, but for the past 15 or so years, I average speaking to from 350 to 450 different groups each year. I have spoken in all 50 states on numerous occasions. (WallBuilders also has three other speakers who regularly address groups that I cannot accommodate in my schedule.) My efforts are generally limited to America. I am often asked to work with governments and government leaders in foreign nations, but I usually decline. While I do like sharing with all Christians the Biblical principles for government and for citizen involvement, I feel particularly directed toward America. Therefore, my travels to foreign nations are usually to speak on American military bases in foreign lands (I will travel to virtually any nation to speak to American military personnel). My work with governments and Christians in foreign nations is usually limited to phone consultation and/or television programs beamed into their nations.

The settings for my presentations in America are diverse and include churches, schools, universities, conferences, business groups, political groups, legislatures (both state and federal), pastors’ conferences, judicial conclaves, continuing legal education, broadcast media (religious and secular), print media (religious and secular), and many other venues.

What is the focus of your advocacy nowadays?

Our advocacy is typically directed by the issues of the day. That is, we often don’t focus on an issue until something, or someone else, directs our attention to that issue. As an example, within six weeks after President Clinton took office, as one of his first three major acts he proposed to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. The public response against that proposal was immediate and clear; previous records were surpassed for the number of phone calls received in Washington, and a vast super-majority of the callers were opposed to lifting the ban. The outcry was loud and unified, and Congress convened hearings. Pentagon officials and other military experts testified that the issue of homosexuals in the military was a relatively recent one, and that Congress needed to craft a policy to address it. During that time, we received a call from Marine Corp officials who asked if the Founding Fathers had any opinions on homosexuals in the military.

We had no idea, but promised to check. We were shocked by what we found. For example, we discovered that the first homosexual kicked out of the military was by George Washington in 1778, and he offered a succinct and pointed description of that dismissal. Others with very clear opinions about homosexuality included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc. Therefore, not only was the issue of homosexuality a Biblical issue, it was also an historical one. We had never consciously planned to research the issue, yet the immediacy of the issue coupled with the request from military leadership directed us toward that venue of inquiry.