Opinion Contributor
Deterring the nuclear option
In our dealings with the Soviet Union in the latter half of the 20th century, a theory of how to stop a nuclear war was known as “mutually assured destruction.” The theory went that the Soviets would not launch a first strike knowing that a counterstrike would inflict similar or worse damage.
Even on a smaller scale, the fallout from a nuclear blast is severe — and it is nearly impossible to tell which way the winds will blow and who will be affected by the fallout.
Continue ReadingWhile obviously hyperbole, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is currently threatening to launch what congressional observers refer to as the “nuclear option” — that is, breaking the current Senate rules to permanently curtail the rights of the minority party by ending the possibility of extended debate and amendments on vital pieces of legislation.
Much like any nuclear alternative, deterrents are available if one is willing to exercise them, and the possible dangers of unforeseen fallout exist. Today, I caution the majority leader that I will not simply stand by and witness his destruction of the rights of senators, nor his power grab through clear breaking of Senate rules and precedents. I will fight back.
Currently, the Senate requires 67 votes, a two-thirds majority, to shut down debate to change its rules. The Senate should be consistent and not changed at the whim of 51 of its members. Sen. Reid knows this, but is insisting that debate on Senate rules can be shut down with 51, and plans to use this tactic to impose his will on the body.
While I disagree with his underlying assertion, if he is going to break the rules to change the rules with a 51-vote threshold, then I will fight back by offering a series of rules changes that will improve the Senate. But instead of stepping on the rights of most senators, my changes will enhance the rights of all Americans and restore constitutional order in the Senate. Each of these could be passed with a simple majority, but would require a two-thirds vote to waive later. Among my many proposed rule changes are:
• Each year’s budget must be balanced.
• A point of order demanding enumerated constitutional authority for any piece of legislation.
• A point of order protecting each one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. Any senator could, at any time and as a privileged motion, assert that a bill violated one of the first 10 amendments.
Readers' Comments (29)
dsher2000 Party: NA
Reply #1
Dec. 14, 2012 - 7:45 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
bbbfst Party: NA
Reply #2
Dec. 14, 2012 - 7:45 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Zhukov Party: Liberal
Reply #3
Dec. 14, 2012 - 7:49 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
automaticftp Party: NA
Reply #4
Dec. 14, 2012 - 8:14 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
sharp77 Party: Independent
Reply #5
Dec. 14, 2012 - 9:13 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
rene of mandeville Party: Independent
Reply #6
Dec. 14, 2012 - 10:00 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
rene of mandeville Party: Independent
Reply #7
Dec. 14, 2012 - 10:01 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
rene of mandeville Party: Independent
Reply #8
Dec. 14, 2012 - 10:01 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Betty B Party: N/A
Reply #9
Dec. 14, 2012 - 10:16 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
MSD625 Party: NA
Reply #10
Dec. 14, 2012 - 10:22 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
gravyboy Party: Independent
Reply #11
Dec. 14, 2012 - 10:37 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Mondo Party: NA
Reply #12
Dec. 14, 2012 - 10:41 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
InjunTrouble Party: NA
Reply #13
Dec. 14, 2012 - 11:01 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
kiddielaughter Party: Independent
Reply #14
Dec. 14, 2012 - 11:02 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Granny12 Party: Democrat
Reply #15
Dec. 14, 2012 - 11:12 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
bobisright Party: Independent
Reply #16
Dec. 14, 2012 - 11:39 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Richard Palmer Party: Independent
Reply #17
Dec. 14, 2012 - 11:47 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
mariaconzemius Party: Democrat
Reply #18
Dec. 14, 2012 - 12:18 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Hannibal_32 Party: NA
Reply #19
Dec. 14, 2012 - 12:29 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
magdelina Party: NA
Reply #20
Dec. 14, 2012 - 12:38 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Read all 29 comments in our forumA pathetic article from a narcissistic idiot. Rand, you can propose all of the stupid rules you want, they won't happen.
Senator Paul, your rule changes would do nothing to address the problem of the Senate -- complete gridlock -- which is an issue because you and your fellow Republicans have "filibustered" every bill that has come before it (nearly 400 times in past couple of years), which at this time just means the minority can say no, move along and nothing happens. Making you actually filibuster -- that is, stand up and defend your obstruction -- isn't taking away the minority's rights, it's making you publicly defend your positions. Something that the current rules allow you to avoid.
The Senate is as broke as can by, thanks in no small part to partisan warriors like Rand Paul.
The flip side of nuclear deterrent, unmentioned in this article, is that the 'deterrent' part was supposed to restrain the behavior of the other side that didn't want a nuclear war. For life of me, I just can't envision how Republicans could act worse under any scenario. The deterrent having failed, nuclear doctrine then requires a nuclear strike to cripple the opponent. So go ahead Reid, its not like the Republicans are holding anything back right now.
Mr. Rand
Please go crawl back under your rock in Kentucky.
Deliberate? Yes. Obstructionist and crippling? No. You want to be the latter. Perhaps you could learn from one of the grown-ups in the Senate, like Michael Bennet or Chuck Schumer. But I doubt they speak slowly enough for you.
The government moves far too slow for today's world. If a process model does not work, change it. As for minority rights in an election that the republicans just lost in the Senate, the American people have spoken. The minority should have a chance to stand up and talk but not halt all progress; the Jimmy Stewart filibuster. The current secretive filibuster process hides too much from the public's view.
I do especially like the sunset provision offered by Paul. Put an automatic kill for legislation that does not meet its intended metrics.
although I agree with your foreign policy prescriptions and defense policies as did your fathers. I must disagree becasue republicans have abused the filibuster as a legislative tool. the disgrace is the senate and you should be working to fix the perception of why the congress is approved by only 10% of the population
although I agree with your foreign policy prescriptions and defense policies as did your fathers. I must disagree becasue republicans have abused the filibuster as a legislative tool. the disgrace is the senate and you should be working to fix the perception of why the congress is approved by only 10% of the population
although I agree with your foreign policy prescriptions and defense policies as did your fathers. I must disagree becasue republicans have abused the filibuster as a legislative tool. the disgrace is the senate and you should be working to fix the perception of why the congress is approved by only 10% of the population
How is it "blowing up the senate" to require that Senators "practice" (for lack of a better phrase) the filibuster in the manner it was originally designed. What is wrong with asking a legislator of ANY political stripe to display the courage of his/her convictions and stand up and put their face and name behind their objection to a particular piece of legislation instead of taking the cowardly way out and just ANONYMOUSLY stalling a bill they don't like and suffering no consequences for it because no one knows who he or she is?
"Blowing up the Senate"?? GMAB
Ha, the comments on here are a joke. automaticftp: grown ups like Bennet and Schumer? Are you kidding? Oh, and bbbfst: gridlock is a good thing. It means the government does less.
Here' Harry groveling about saving the Filibuster and the 200 year old Senate rules just a few short years ago:
www.youtube.com/watch
The Republican dominated House already made it clear that they will not consider passing ANYTHING the comes from the Senate if the new rules are pushed through. It will be two years of absolutely nothing getting done.
The filibuster is the only way the Republicans can force Reid to allow amendments since he "fills the tree" on every single bill that comes through there.
"As for minority rights in an election that the republicans just lost in the Senate, the American people have spoken" Last time I checked each Senator was individually elected within his state not nationally. What they do represents the will of the majority in"their" state whether you like it or not.
What is so nuclear about asking senators to stand up on the floor and do an actual filibuster?
Today's lazy, partisan senators want to relax in their fancy offices and do a filibuster by signing some paper, they should go watch the movie with Jimmy Stewart and do it the right way. If Obama asked for a bill to put up a new lawn in the White House, these guys would filibuster it, but if you ask them to do any real work, they scream 'nuclear',
The Fact that 67 votes, a supermajority, are needed to even continue debate highlight’s the senate’s fundamental problem. I say GO NUCLEAR on these stifling, fossilized debate rules and let the chamber vote. 67 votes should only be in rare circumstances.
Problem with your premise is that Republicans/Dems will and have used amendments to push through laws that has nothing to do with the bill being voted on. for instance abortion amendments on transportation bills, or right-to-work amendments on budget reduction bills....that's just plain ole devious in it's intent........if the amendment has nothing to do with the bill being presented then it's jsut a gimick and divisive way to get your political agenda over.......I concur with Mr. Reid...he or whomever should have the power to prevent this type of shenanigans......
If the American People don't want the Senate to look like the Senate from the last four years of Obstructionism, then filibuster reform is demanded. The American people will not stand for anything less, and if some of these gutless Democrats can't understand this, they will find themselves out of a job the next time their up for a vote. Just ask Blanch Lincoln and a few of the retiring Democrats who didn't run for reelection because the knew they would lose due to Democrats not supporting them.
All Reid seems to be proposing is going back to rules that were in force for most of the Senate's history. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing GOP senators stand up and talk for hours and hours -- especially Senator McConnell.
Congress is dysfunctional, especially the House. Should the minority party be allowed to continue shooting down legislation proposed and supported by the majority of the Senate? Not unless it pleases you to put the minority in charge of the majority. Elections have consequences, and the minority should NOT be able to run roughshod over the wishes of the majority unless it is a question of civil rights. A filibuster, a threatened filibuster allowed to pose as a real filibuster, and the kinds of secret holds that a single Republican, Sen. Jim DeMint, used to put on the president's nominations should not be allowed to continue.
Does Congress wants to continue its dysfunctionality and earn the increased contempt of the American people?
How could anyone be against any of that? People like Reid are destroying this country. Rand Paul is simply trying to protect the Constitution that the liberals feel "constrains" them. Our freedoms are guaranteed by that document. God help us.
You are part of the problem Mr. Paul.....Senator Reid is just tired of your games and I hope he puts an end to your foolishness for the good of the country.
You must be logged in to comment
Not yet a member?
Register Now