Dear Paul,
Harry Reid is threatening to slam his fist on the big red button to launch his nuclear strike...
He's trying to ram through changes in Senate rules that would trample the rights of the minority
party and unalterably change Senate proceedings forever.
Please take a moment to read my op-ed below published by
/Politico/.
I'm going to lead the fight to stop Harry Reid, but I can't do it without your support.
In Liberty,
Senator Rand Paul
P.S. Please read my Politico op-ed on Harry Reid's attempts to perpetually sideline the Senate
minority party.
*And please chip in $50, $25, or whatever you can afford to help Randpac in this fight*
<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/10635731:14027255854:m:1:335313736:4976636AF774B0228458EB20DED2A4A9:r>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deterring the Nuclear Option
By: Sen. Rand Paul
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.
While 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.
* A waiting period of 20 days for each page of legislation.
* A sunset provision on all major new legislation.
There are many, many more I can and will likely offer in the unfortunate event Sen. Reid tries to
strong-arm the Senate into breaking its own rules to increase his power over the body. The Senate
was intended to be a place where legislation was slowed down. It was supposed to be the place where
amendments were offered, debate was encouraged, and all participated in a process that led to better
laws.
The Senate is supposed to be the "deliberative body." Well Sen. Reid, deliberate on this: In pursuit
of more power, are you willing to expose your caucus to the votes I've outlined above, or others
such as term limits, one subject at a time, any infringement of Second Amendment rights, and a
two-thirds majority to raise taxes?
Also, I want the Senate to consider a new rule stripping the majority leader of the power to prevent
amendments to bills. This is a "filibuster reform" that all should support, because on the vast
majority of bills, Sen. Reid forbids amendments. By forbidding amendments, he is essentially
filibustering himself. By abusing his power and blocking virtually all amendments on most bills, the
Senate has broken down into a charade and a farce. This must end.
I hope the majority leader will reconsider using the nuclear option and exploding the Senate. The
fallout of acrimony likely will negate any hope for progress. Instead of breaking the rules to make
the rules, perhaps he should pick up the phone and work with the opposition. Republicans and
Democrats likely agree on several dozen bills. A great leader would find that agreement and pass
legislation, not agitate, provoke and destroy the unique characteristics of the Senate - simply to
get his way.
/Sen. Rand Paul is a Republican from Kentucky/
© RAND PAC, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
Paid for by RAND PAC and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to
RAND PAC are not tax-deductible.
*www.RANDPAC.com
<http://www.randpac.com>*
The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
You Tube key word PaulLamar2
Copyright 1998-2012 All world wide rights reserved.