Late last night, President Trump signed into law a spending package that reopened the US government, drawing the record-long forty-three-day shutdown to a close. The package includes:
- Funding for the federal government through January 30.
- Full-year funding for the Agriculture Department, military construction, and the legislative branch.
- Language guaranteeing the reversal of federal layoffs initiated by the Trump administration during the shutdown and a moratorium on future cuts.
- Paychecks for federal employees, including air-traffic controllers, which will send thousands of furloughed government workers back to the job.
However, the bill postponed the issue that was central to the standoff until later this year: how to address the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. Democrats refused to fund the government without assurances that the subsidies would be extended; Republicans wanted to fund the government and then debate the subsidies.
The debate highlighted a strange feature in our federal governance. Democrats are in the minority in both the House and the Senate, so Republicans could presumably have outvoted them and passed the legislation they wanted. They did so in the House; the measure they approved yesterday and sent to the president for his signature passed 222 to 209, largely along party lines.
But they could not do so in the Senate, even though they hold a 53–47 majority. Only after eight senators (seven Democrats and one Independent) agreed to vote with the Republicans could they pass the legislation to the House, which then passed it and sent it to the White House.
The reason is the “filibuster,” a strange component in the Senate’s governance. You probably didn’t get up this morning hoping I would write on it. Nor did I. I had a very different article planned, but after reading today’s news of the government reopening and considering what led to it, I decided to write what follows.
The reason, as I’ll explain, has more to do with our souls than with our governance.
Why the “filibuster” is significant
On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” This occurred in the very first session of the US Senate. The Virginia senators utilized the right of unlimited debate, a tactic that came to be known as the “filibuster” (from the Spanish filibustero, which ironically means “lawless plunderer”).
By the mid-nineteenth century, filibusters became more common as a way for an individual senator or minority party to prevent legislation from proceeding. This led to demands for “cloture,” a method for ending debate and bringing a question to a vote.
In 1917, the Senate adopted a rule allowing for debate to be closed with a two-thirds vote. In 1975, the number of votes required for cloture was reduced to sixty, where it stands today. However, the Senate adopted new precedents in the 2010s to allow a simple majority to end debate on nominations; the sixty-vote practice remains for legislation.
Over the years, when a party has held the majority, some within it have called for abolishing the sixty-vote requirement to end debate. After all, the voters elected the majority; to allow the minority to block their legislative decisions seems undemocratic. Others have warned that when the other side regains the majority in the future, the current majority will be unable to block legislation to which they object.
This may seem like an “in the weeds” discussion of an arcane political practice, but the issue has very real and practical consequences. The fifty-three Republicans in the Senate could not pass legislation reopening the federal government without the support of eight Democrats (Republican Sen. Rand Paul voted against the bill). From food stamp payments to air traffic issues to furloughed workers, millions of Americans were directly affected as a result.
Why minority rights matter
The Founders created a democratic republic in which the minority has significant rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. If you are ever in the minority on a significant issue, you’ll be grateful for this arrangement.
For example, when the so-called Equality Act was adopted by the Democrat-led House a few years ago, it failed in the Democrat-led Senate because Democrats could not obtain enough Republican support for the sixty votes needed to overcome the filibuster. There were adamant calls by some Democrats to suspend the filibuster to pass the legislation by simple majority. However, Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to do so, which ensured that the Act would not proceed.
Since I agree with those who consider the Equality Act “the most invasive threat to religious liberty ever proposed in America,” I am deeply grateful for this outcome.
Now to the larger purpose behind this “civics lesson” I didn’t intend to write this morning.
Why we have laws, and why they are not sufficient
The whole reason humans construct laws to govern our behavior is that we cannot be trusted to act morally without them. The oldest known surviving law code dates to 2095 BC and includes laws against murder, robbery, and kidnapping. From Cain and Abel to today, sinful people have behaved in sinful ways.
This fact pertains not only to citizens governed by our laws but also to those who construct them. Presidents, governors, mayors, legislators, and judges are no less fallen upon their ascension to office than the rest of us. Checks and balances that prevent leaders from exercising unaccountable power, as laborious and frustrating as they may be at times, are essential to protecting some of us from the rest of us.
Here we find yet another reason why the gospel is such “good news.” Human laws cannot change human hearts, but Jesus can. Unlike any other world religion, worldview, or system of government, he forgives every sin we confess (1 John 1:9), separates our sins from us “as far as the east is from the west” (Psalm 103:12), buries them in “the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19), and “remembers your sins no more” (Isaiah 43:25 NIV).
But Jesus not only forgives sins—he remakes sinners. When we make him our Lord, he makes us a “new creation” as the “children of God” (2 Corinthians 5:17; John 1:12). When we submit our lives daily to his Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), he sanctifies us and manifests the character of Christ in us (2 Thessalonians 2:13; Romans 8:29; Galatians 5:22–23).
This is why living in the Spirit is the key to the abundant life of Christ. And it is why sharing Christ with our broken culture—however we can, whenever we can—is our greatest service to our fellow Americans.
Our nation’s future and flourishing depend not on human governance but on divine grace. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5).
It never will.
Quote for the day:
“There is no greater communication of love than proclaiming the gospel of God.” —Alistair Begg
Our latest website resources:
Denison Forum
DAILY DEVOTIONS, NEWS AND INFORMATION 