Protecting Stable Governance — Virginia vs. the Federal Government

by James C. Sherlock

James Madison

An opinion piece by Catherine Rampell in The Washington Post was headlined, “No one in their right mind would design a government that works like ours.”

She meant that her preferred changes to American governance were stymied by Senate rules. The “no one in their right mind” was a tell. Anyone who disagreed with her was not sane. I don’t think I abuse the term by calling her dogmatic — carried forward by a religious zeal.

The target of her outrage, though she did not name him, was James Madison. See The Necessity of the Senate in the Federal Government, James Madison, Federalist 62, 1788.

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. . . . All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity, ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought moreover to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration. . . .

. . . The mutability in the public councils, arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. . . .

Madison designed the Constitution to ensure that temporary small majorities (or ties in the Senate as currently) could not make fundamental changes in governance. The passions of the moment were designed to cool in the Senate.

While the federal Senate has certainly changed a great deal since Madison’s document, it has maintained through those changes its role in assuring stability.

The Left wants revolutions. Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson had the Senate majorities to carry them out. Joe Biden does not. Thus the passions exemplified by Ms. Rampell’s fevered column.

Without stability, there can be no real unity, nor, of critical importance, can any American plan his or her life or business based upon stable assumptions of governance.

Virginia has far less effective safeguards.

George Mason

The Democrats, upon assuming control of the General Assembly, governorship and attorney general positions in 2018, fundamentally shifted the laws of Virginia to the left. Some like that, others don’t, but it has not been a watershed of stability. There is no filibuster in the Virginia Senate so closely divided.

The Republicans, should they gain control of the Virginia Senate in 2023, will return the favor.

The difference is that the Democratic party, the party of government, will always reach far and fast for increased government control aligned with their priorities. Republican priorities are generally to roll back government control, not to extend it in a different direction.

The Virginia Constitution of 1776, written in large part by George Mason, provided for a popularly elected House of Delegates. Most of the power resided in that house, which initiated legislation. It created a new 24-member Senate of Virginia, but there was no amendment process.

It thus prescribed a parliamentary form of government that mirrored that in England. The governor, like the king, could not even veto a bill, and could only act as head of the state militia on the advice of his Council of State, whose members were elected by the legislature.

The Virginia Senate evolved from there but it never attained the status of the federal Senate, because it was not deemed necessary for that body to assure stability. The Virginia Way was assumed to be inherently stable. Even Terry McAuliffe in his 2014 inaugural address spoke of the “Virginia Way” being about building consensus.

That was soon abandoned with change of control of the General Assembly. There was no mechanism for building consensus, just for one-vote majorities and a governor who would sign.

It has turned out that the current system in Virginia is probably not the best way to run a state. Probably not the best way to provide stable assumptions upon which Virginians can plan their lives.

Madison, in his brilliant Constitution, had a better idea.

For Virginia, it is now too late.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

22 responses to “Protecting Stable Governance — Virginia vs. the Federal Government”

  1. The passions of the moment were designed to cool in the Senate.

    In my opinion, a great deal of the gravitas of the federal Senate, and most of its ability to cool the “passions of the moment”, were lost when the 17th Amendment was ratified.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      As long as the Senate retains the filibuster, it will serve to temper passions on both sides of the aisle.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar

      Perhaps it’s more of the Senate became more polarizing and partisan when Senators were moved to direct election.

      There would be a completely different landscape if Senators were still chosen by State Legislatures.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Should have thought it the 18th.

      Earmarks. We need earmarks again. These were the things of across the aisle comradery and behind the scenes backstabbing and a source of Senatorial self enrichment.

      The 17th ended the effects of gerrymandering on at least one of the chambers.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Republican priorities are generally to roll back government control, not to extend it in a different direction.”

    Except toward the interior of women’s bodies, of course…

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      When lawyer’s opinions suffice for legal opinions and legal opinions become as ephemeral and as meaningless as opinion polls and those in the OpEd then the Republican priorities shall be met.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The opinion piece to which you refer has nothing to do with Madison. The author is complaining about the filibuster. The filibuster is not in the Constitution and Madison never even considered such a rule.

    Furthermore, the lengthy quote from the Federalist does not represent Madison’s original position during the drafting of the Constitution. He argued strongly that there should be proportional representation of the states in the new Congress, rather than the system used under the Articles of Confederation, in which each state had the same vote. Here is how he reported his remarks in his notes from the debate on May 30, 17887:

    “Mr. Madison observed that whatever reason might have existed for the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal one among sovereign States, it must cease when a national Government should be put into place.”

    And, by the way, every other state has the same arrangement that Virginia has: the majority rules.

    And, one more thing, the “stability” to which Madison referred in the Federalist, as the passage plainly says, was derived primarily from the Senate being a smaller body and its members having longer terms.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Thanks, Dick. But you just wrote an entirely different column than I did.

      I never wrote Madison had anything to do with the filibuster. You challenged a point that I did not make. It’s called a straw man.

      I said that he favored a strong Senate, which clearly from Federalist 62 he did.

      I wrote that the federal Congress is not the same now as the original Constitution laid out, but we still have a strong federal Senate. That is also true.

      You write about what Madison’s position was during the drafting of the Constitution. Excellent research. But there were a great many compromises and conversions of thought during the drafting. That was the genius of the founders.

      I referenced his Federalist 62 which was written after the new constitution was written. It was written seeking ratification, so his position in Federalist 62 post-dates and thus supercedes whatever his position was going in to the drafting compromises.

      The Senate filibuster, first used in the 1830’s, was open-ended until 1917. The cloture rule – rule 22 – require two-thirds of senators voting, was adopted that year to ensure tha war measures could not be endlessly filibustered. The cloture rule was adopted 76-3.

      So that is what we have now. We fought two World Wars with a cloture rule. Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson made massive changes to the federal government with the cloture rule in effect. The left is now whining that “nothing can be done” under that rule.

      That is another interesting piece of history, like yours, but neither was the subject of my article.

      My piece traces a strong Senate back to Madison. It then contrasts the first federal constitution with the first Virginia constitution driven by Mason.

      I then lament the relative lack of governing stability in Virginia compared to the federal government exactly because a majority of one rules in the Virginia Senate as well as the House.

      My lament is an opinion, you are welcome to a different one.

      But your article in the comment section was on a separate set of facts, not the ones I offered as basis for my opinion. And your facts did not contradict mine.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Here is your statement to which I was reacting: “The target of her outrage, though she did not name him, was James Madison.” The target of her outrage was the filibuster, not Madison.

        Your history of the filibuster leaves out a lot of context. Yes, FDR and Johnson governed under the filibuster and we fought two world wars. However, the custom was that the filibuster was used only on extraordinary occasions. Up until 1970, the number of cloture motions and votes was in the single digits each year. In some years, it was 0. In 2007-2008, the number of cloture motions more than doubled from the years before, from 68 to 139. That was when Obama came into office. Coincidence? The number has risen steadily since then. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm

        But even those numbers do not capture the influence of the filibuster. It is now assumed that 60 votes will be needed to pass any substantive legislation in the Senate. A cloture motion does not even have to be filed; the threat of a filibuster is enough to stymie legislation. The filibuster has gone from a rarely used tactic to a regularly used threat by the minority.

        There are so many other Senate customs and rules that make the body almost dysfunctional. For example, many of Biden’s nominations for ambassadorships have been held up by one Senator, Ted Cruz, due to his pique over some foreign policy.

        The Senate used to style itself the greatest deliberative body. Now, it can lay claim only to being the biggest roadblock.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Here is your statement to which I was reacting: “The target of her outrage, though she did not name him, was James Madison.” The target of her outrage was the filibuster, not Madison.

        Your history of the filibuster leaves out a lot of context. Yes, FDR and Johnson governed under the filibuster and we fought two world wars. However, the custom was that the filibuster was used only on extraordinary occasions. Up until 1970, the number of cloture motions and votes was in the single digits each year. In some years, it was 0. In 2007-2008, the number of cloture motions more than doubled from the years before, from 68 to 139. That was when Obama came into office. Coincidence? The number has risen steadily since then. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm

        But even those numbers do not capture the influence of the filibuster. It is now assumed that 60 votes will be needed to pass any substantive legislation in the Senate. A cloture motion does not even have to be filed; the threat of a filibuster is enough to stymie legislation. The filibuster has gone from a rarely used tactic to a regularly used threat by the minority.

        There are so many other Senate customs and rules that make the body almost dysfunctional. For example, many of Biden’s nominations for ambassadorships have been held up by one Senator, Ted Cruz, due to his pique over some foreign policy.

        The Senate used to style itself the greatest deliberative body. Now, it can lay claim only to being the biggest roadblock.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          “The Senate used to style itself the greatest deliberative body. Now, it can lay claim only to being the biggest roadblock.”

          That is the most outlandish and completely distorted statement I’ve seen yet. Our Government was always intended to be deadlock, that way only important pieces of legislation get passed, that require agreement from all sides.

          PS: The Senate is under no obligation to rubber stamp a POTUS’s nominee’s. They get to vote and determine if they approve. If that offends you, perhaps you should revisit some of your own parties antics.

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Dick, You and I are not disagreeing about history, just talking about different parts of it.

          You know that the filibuster was not only used by Republicans in opposition to Obama, but also by Democrats in opposition to Trump. The difference is that I will say it. Just like I said the “Republicans will return the favor” in single vote General Assembly majorities in Virginia. They will. Hard to blame them.

          I regret both that Virginia Democrats used microscopic majorities to pass landmark legislation and that the Republicans will be in a position to repeal every Act or amendment to an Act passed by Democratic majorities and signed by a Democratic governor since 2018.

          Sauce for the goose.

          It was meant to be clear that I regret it, that Virginia’s constitution enables it, and I think it was clear.

          I was writing a column, not a book.

          I was making a point about the role of the federal Senate, and using Madison’s words to show that that role was from the beginning conceived to be the “saucer where passions of the moment were cooled”. And then contrasting it to George Mason’s 1776 Constitution of Virginia that did not share that concept.

          I respect the hell out of you. You choose to make a different point. Knock yourself out.

          But I give my readers credit for some level of education.

          Sometimes we authors of opinion pieces, both of us, have to use historical context selectively – just recognizing major historical trends – in a 1000 word opinion piece.

          I try, and may occasionally fail, to not challenge a 1000 word opinion piece by bringing up great swaths of history which it did not address.

          If he gets the broad themes of history that he is addressing right, he is entitled to his opinion.

          If I don’t share it, I will say so, but not assume malfeasance if he does not present the 100,000 word version.

          Have a nice holidays

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “…the Republicans will be in a position to repeal every Act or amendment to an Act passed by Democratic majorities and signed by a Democratic governor since 2018.”

            Those chickens are not even a gleam in the rooster’s eye yet…

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yes, he did. And his made sense.

  4. tmtfairfax Avatar

    What do you expect from a “journalist” who works for the Washington Post? The Founders designed the U.S. government as one of checks and balances. And while the filibuster was not in the Constitution, it’s been a part of our governmental system for years. And both sides use it. It infuriates everyone but only on certain issues that vary by person. It pushes factions towards compromise. But all this is clearly too complicated for a journalist to understand.

  5. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    I fault the 17th Amendment for changing the dynamics of the Senate greatly. I would love to revert to appointment by the State in the hope that the Senators would then act to protect their States…or lose their jobs. But I also have to fault US for the buffoons we elect.
    They should not be paid for no budget.
    They should not be paid for running deficits.
    They should not get pensions (if at all, they should have 403b)
    No government worker should be paid during shutdowns.
    We should not accept being ruled by decrees from the Pres, the Gov, or a federal or State agency.
    A government worker (any level) should not be able to organize against the people
    And they should be terminatable at will. Sorry. But we are not to be held hostage by our so called public servants.

  6. Matt Hurt Avatar

    Sincere question- is the increasing use of the filibuster a symptom of the decrease in dialog and cooperation across the aisle combined with the temporary majority of the day trying to push through ever more radical policies the other side can’t stomach?

    1. IMHO it has rather become a political tool to obstruct any action by the party in the majority. It enables political grandstanding for the folks back home and serves as input to fundraising appeals. Currently, the minority leader is hard pressed to get ten Republicans to follow his lead on almost any bi-partisan outreach such as raising the debt ceiling or funding the government.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I blame AbScam.

    1. tmtfairfax Avatar

      Actually, the acceleration of inter-party hostility and one-upmanship started when certain Democratic senators went after Robert Bork. Since then, both parties have raised the ante.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Meh. Nuts&bomb went after Anita Hill like a dog on a bone. All was forgiven.

Leave a Reply