Answering Reader Questions: Can the Filibuster Sabotage Trump's Agenda? What Size Should the Gov't Be?
As a special thank you to our dedicated members, we at The Western Journal have decided to start answering reader questions via a recurring series.
If you have any questions about the latest news regarding the Trump administration, fake news, woke culture — or just regarding Christian/conservative politics in general — please submit them using this form.
I want to know what the federal government would look like if it were held strictly in the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, leaving everything not specifically called for to the states and the people thereof.
(The following response was authored by one of The Western Journal’s most senior writers, C. Douglas Golden.)
It’s an excellent question, considering that — in an age where the federal government seems to creep into every aspect of our lives — the idea of the states as “laboratories of democracy” is quickly fading away.
First and foremost, then, the federal government should ideally serve to protect the states from creeping intervention from Washington, D.C., forming a bulwark within the bounds of the seven articles of the Constitution and the 27 amendments to it.
To the extent the rights of the individual should be protected from state intervention — I’m here, naturally, thinking of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but others certainly are of paramount importance to people across the fruited plain — the federal government needs to step in to ensure those rights aren’t being arrogated to state bureaucrats.
Second, we need the federal government for tasks like immigration enforcement and national sovereignty.
This is again an example where some states have taken the lead, although not because they want to, but because they must; when former President Biden’s open-border policy flooded states like Texas with hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, Texas state officials took action — much to the dismay of the Biden administration, which clashed with GOP Gov. Greg Abbott and other officials.
It’s the job of the federal government to ensure border security no matter who the president is.
The federal government is also responsible for both national defense but also for negotiating with foreign states.
This is one of the few explicitly stated primary responsibilities the U.S. Constitution entrusts to Washington, and there’s a clear mandate for a strong military and America-first foreign policy, including entering into treaties and supranational agreements — although, on the last part, this requires Congressional approval.
That being said, a stronger emphasis on the power of Congress to “declare war… raise and support armies… [and] provide and maintain a navy” — issues which, to varying degrees, have been usurped by the executive branch — should be emphasized by conservatives interested in strong originalism.
This also doesn’t mean the Constitution gives America the duty to intervene in any conflict with a whiff of American interest or a right to act as the world’s policeman. America has interests, at present, in most of the world’s conflicts, sometimes a strong interest — but that doesn’t mean that interventionism is right or justified.
At least at present, too, the federal government is needed to reform itself.
The Department of Government Efficiency under President Trump is a step in the right direction, but in and of itself, it’s not enough: We need a complete reform of the administrative state to dramatically reduce the size of the federal government and ensure that, to the extent the administrative state governs, it only does so in a way that aligns with the powers delegated to it under the Constitution.
Like it or not, the only mechanism to reform the federal government without a sweeping congressional mandate that won’t come is through the mechanism of the federal government.
So, that’s clearly a function of devolving the immense power that’s been accumulated in Washington, D.C. — at least at present. This is something that strict constitutionalists will need to constantly evaluate, lest the reformers become bureaucrats themselves, but it’s an important step in decentralizing power.
It’s worth noting that, on this count, it’s not just DOGE that’s scoring victories. For instance, the Trump administration is taking steps to eliminate the Department of Education — a critical move that would move education and parental rights much closer to home.
Obviously, too, there’s the matter of making sure that originalist judges are appointed. During President Trump’s first term, this was one of his big wins, and it’s a trend that we hope he’ll continue on in his second term of office.
To ensure a constitutional form of governance from Washington, we need federal judges across the nation who will uphold the Constitution as written and not find new interpretations of it under the pretense that it’s a “living document.”
At the present moment, for instance, the “universal injunction” — where one federal judge can hold up an executive order or law in the entire nation based on a ruling in his court, no matter what his jurisdiction may be — is one of the most troubling and anti-constitutional trends we’ve noticed.
Finally, there’s the matter of election integrity: While the matter of voting laws and processes are left to the states, election integrity must be ensured by the federal government. This should, ideally, include voter identification checks, scrutiny of voter rolls and mail-in balloting procedures, and at least the mandatory option for paper ballots, among other things.
We can talk about our preferences for the federal government — we’d like to see it as small as needed to accomplish the tasks it needs to accomplish — but, as to your question, this list isn’t comprehensive, nor can it be unless it was extended to book-length. (An incredibly long book that’d be, we must note.)
That said, as for the rest, we’d do well to remember the back end of the Bill of Rights whenever the federal leviathan tries to establish another foothold in our lives:
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If we’re talking about making sure that the states have the rights the founders intended for them to have, this needs to be our North Star.
Conservatives everywhere should remember that the 50 states each represent one laboratory in our great republic. To a great extent, the federal government should busy itself with devolving as much power to each as it can while protecting the inalienable rights of every citizen.
(The next question was written in response to the following Op-Ed. Both the Op-Ed and the response below were authored by guest Op-Ed contributor and CIA whistleblower Pedro Israel Orta.)
Mr. Orta, I appreciate your statement of the importance of securing Trump’s executive orders with legislation. Here’s my question, Can Senate Democrats stall most, if not all, of the needed legislation via the filibuster? What can Congress do to avoid this?
First, thank you for taking the time to read the Western Journal and this guest Op-Ed piece. Second, thanks for thinking about it and asking an excellent question.
Yes, Senate Democrats can indeed use the filibuster to stall legislation, as it requires 60 votes to invoke cloture and end debate on most bills, effectively allowing a determined minority to delay or block action.
With Republicans holding a Senate majority in 2025, they can pass bills requiring only a simple majority — 51 votes — through mechanisms like budget reconciliation, which bypasses the filibuster but is limited to fiscal matters like taxes and spending.
However, for broader legislation to codify Trump’s executive orders into law, the filibuster remains a hurdle unless Democrats cooperate or Republicans secure a supermajority.
To overcome this, Republicans have a few options.
First, they can prioritize unity and persistence, ensuring all GOP senators align on key votes.
Second, they could negotiate with moderate Democrats to peel off enough support for cloture, though this depends on the political climate and the specifics of each bill.
Third, they could push to reform or eliminate the filibuster itself — a long-shot move requiring full party consensus and facing steep political risks.
Absent that, the filibuster can’t be “overridden” in the traditional sense; it’s a procedural reality they’d need to work around.
Practically, Republicans should act swiftly: draft bills, hold committee hearings, secure committee approval, and bring them to the Senate floor.
Delays are inevitable with a slow legislative process, but starting early maximizes their window. In the House, where Republicans also hold a majority, the absence of a filibuster simplifies things—bills need only a simple majority to pass after committee review.
The key is momentum: propose legislation now and shepherd it through both chambers to enshrine Trump’s executive orders into the United States Code (U.S.C.), making them harder to undo by future administrations.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
