# Could/would Rand Paul really singlehandedly bring on a depression? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285 "2010-11-03T02:08:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/21 "2010-11-03T15:46:48Z")
As was said, no one Senator can single-handedly do anything. It takes 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster. 41 is not the same as 1. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/22 "2010-11-03T15:51:00Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > As was said, no one Senator can single-handedly do anything. It takes 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster. 41 is not the same as 1. A single Senator can withhold unanimous consent. Would that do it? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/23 "2010-11-03T16:02:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The GOP would kiss the ass of Satan himself to gain power. As long as they think that Ron Paul will bring money their way there is almost nothing he can do and/or say that will cause them to drop him. I guess the rally to restore sanity failed. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/24 "2010-11-03T16:04:43Z")
It takes only one Senator to place a hold. [Cite:](http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/top_ten_ways_to_bring_the_senate_to_its_knees) > [@](#): > > Because unanimous consent is required to avoid a filibuster and post-cloture debate, just one senator can place a “hold” on any senate business by indicating their willingness to withhold such consent. Worse, Senate customs have evolved to allow “secret holds,” where a senator tells his party leader to place the hold and the leader blocks progress on a matter without ever revealing which senator is responsible for this obstruction. > > Senators have also begun to use these holds simply to prevent business from moving quickly on the Senate floor. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/25 "2010-11-03T16:08:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It takes a two thirds majority to break a filibuster on amendments to the Senate rules. So in order to amend the Senate rules on filibusters, the Democrats would have to… amend the Senate rules. I was under the impression that the majority can simply change the rules at the beginning of a new session. Am I mistaken about that? Maybe I can fight a cite one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/26 "2010-11-03T16:12:54Z")
The argument is that the Senate acts like a continuing body at the start of each Congress. This is in opposition to the way the House works, which re-adopts all rules the first day of the new session. The argument is that the President of the Senate could rule that with the start of the 112th Congress the Senate is not a continuing body and will vote to readopt all rules. At that point, it gets complicated. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/27 "2010-11-03T16:36:17Z")
The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Over Come the Filibuster Martin B. Gold & Dimple Gupta Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold\_Gupta\_JLPP\_article.pdf](http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf) ETA: This argues that the Senate is _not_ a continuing body. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/28 "2010-11-03T16:45:45Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > The argument is that the Senate acts like a continuing body at the start of each Congress. This is in opposition to the way the House works, which re-adopts all rules the first day of the new session. The argument is that the President of the Senate could rule that with the start of the 112th Congress the Senate is not a continuing body and will vote to readopt all rules. At that point, it gets complicated. > [@davidm](#): > > The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: > A Majoritarian Means to Over Come the Filibuster > Martin B. Gold & Dimple Gupta > Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy > > [http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold\_Gupta\_JLPP\_article.pdf](http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf) > > ETA: This argues that the Senate is _not_ a continuing body. This was the so-called “nuclear option” the Republicans threatened when they had a majority under GWB. The idea is that tradition says it requires a 2/3 majority to change the rules, but that is not constitutionally spelled out. The problem is that once it is done it will not be undone. If the GOP had changed the rule in 2005, the last 4 years of the Democratic majority would have gone very differently. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/29 "2010-11-03T19:37:14Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > A single Senator can withhold unanimous consent. Would that do it? Withholding consent means they are going to force a debate and or a vote. The majority leader could then put it to the floor. If the idea is so bad no one in either party wants to hear it they can call for cloture a few minutes into it throw the moron off the stage then move on to other issues. A single Senator is only an issue if they have 40 people backing them. Mind you getting those 40 people isn’t always hard to do but they are still needed. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/30 "2010-11-03T19:46:47Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Withholding consent means they are going to force a debate and or a vote. The majority leader could then put it to the floor. If the idea is so bad no one in either party wants to hear it they can call for cloture a few minutes into it throw the moron off the stage then move on to other issues. > > A single Senator is only an issue if they have 40 people backing them. Mind you getting those 40 people isn’t always hard to do but they are still needed. Technically, you are correct. But look at the unemployment bill it passed unanimously after being held up by secret holds for a month. The Senate is held hostage by its own veneration of customs. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/31 "2010-11-03T20:26:14Z")
The secret hold, in my opinion, is something that definitely should be done away with. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/32 "2010-11-03T20:48:18Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Technically, you are correct. But look at the unemployment bill it passed unanimously after being held up by secret holds for a month. The Senate is held hostage by its own veneration of customs. Sure but that required the Republicans as a party to do it. If the Republicans wanted to pass the unemployment bill it would have happened. They chose to allow the holds for political purposes. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/33 "2010-11-03T21:09:37Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > As was said, no one Senator can single-handedly do anything. It takes 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster. 41 is not the same as 1. Not quite true. In addition to the aforementioned holds, there’s another way for one Senator to screw up the works. It rests on the fact that legislation is supposed to be read on the Senate floor before a vote is taken. Nowadays, when most bills are hundreds or thousands of pages long, the Senate simply agrees to bypass this step. However, the rules still permit any Senator to demand that a piece of legislation be read in its entirety before voting can occur. Hence, any single Senator could effectively bring Senate business to a halt by demanding that for every bill. Mitch McConnell, another esteemed Senator from my birth state of Kentucky, used that tactic several times in the previous Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/34 "2010-11-04T00:52:18Z")
Republican Senator Jim DeMint has had a Senate hold on all legislation in the Senate the past two years. > [@](#): > > Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) raised eyebrows on Monday [when his office emailed](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42807.html) GOP aides to let them know that he would block all legislation that he and his staff have not personally cleared until the November elections. > > Now, however, a Democratic senator is coming forward to relay that DeMint’s threat of grinding the consideration of bills to a halt is nothing new. It has been a formal policy of his since Obama was elected president. > > “It is my understanding Jim DeMint has had a standing hold on everything throughout this two year process,” Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. [Huffington Post - 28 Sept 2010](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/demint-has-placed-a-stand_n_742175.html) > [@](#): > > A spokesman for DeMint, Wesley Denton, did not deny the charge. Rather he clarified that the standing hold is for legislation considered by unanimous consent – in which all 100 senators must agree to passage – and characterized the senator’s procedural tactics as a virtue. So yes, Rand Paul could do the same. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/35 "2010-11-04T14:55:26Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > This was the so-called “nuclear option” the Republicans threatened when they had a majority under GWB. The idea is that tradition says it requires a 2/3 majority to change the rules, but that is not constitutionally spelled out. The problem is that once it is done it will not be undone. If the GOP had changed the rule in 2005, the last 4 years of the Democratic majority would have gone very differently. Seems to me that the real “nuclear option” is for the House of Representatives & the President to agree that the Senate is merely ceremonial, & just start passing bills without it. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/36 "2010-11-04T15:01:43Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Seems to me that the real “nuclear option” is for the House of Representatives & the President to agree that the Senate is merely ceremonial, & just start passing bills without it. How is that possible? Assuming it is, why would Obama do it with a Republican dominated House? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/37 "2010-11-04T15:13:31Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Seems to me that the real “nuclear option” is for the House of Representatives & the President to agree that the Senate is merely ceremonial, & just start passing bills without it. That would require an Amendment, which would require either the Senate to pass it (extremely unlikely) or a Constitutional Convention (which no one in power wants because it could do almost anything). The “nuclear option” is something the majority in the Senate could do on their own to eliminate most of the minority’s power. ETA: You could also bypass the Senate by getting the Supreme Court to rule that Constitution allows you to. That would pretty much gut the Constitution though. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/38 "2010-11-04T15:15:34Z")
The bottom line is that the Senate has had nutty eccentric members in the past and the nation has survived. If Paul gets so far out of line that he starts embarassing other Republicans they’ll join with the Democrats and suppress him. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/39 "2010-11-04T18:13:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The bottom line is that the Senate has had nutty eccentric members in the past and the nation has survived. If Paul gets so far out of line that he starts embarassing other Republicans they’ll join with the Democrats and suppress him. But isn’t he already far past that point? Are they going to suppress him from the start? Maybe so. What really upsets me about this is that people voted in a man who believes, and has stated quite openly and defiantly, that a business owner has the right to discriminate based on ethnicity and, I assume, any number of other goofy reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285/40 "2010-11-04T21:03:16Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: > A Majoritarian Means to Over Come the Filibuster > Martin B. Gold & Dimple Gupta > Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy > > [http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold\_Gupta\_JLPP\_article.pdf](http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf) > > ETA: This argues that the Senate is _not_ a continuing body. Should I note that the authors can’t even count? Assume that 100 Senators are present and a motion needs 2/3 majority. 34 Senators can cause the motion to not pass. The authors claim it must be 1/3 + 1 member which is 33.3 + 1 = 34.3 or 35 Senators are needed. If the authors can’t even get a basic concept of how to count the votes for passage right, why should I believe they can discuss something as subtle as continuing bodies re: sessions [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-would-rand-paul-really-singlehandedly-bring-on-a-depression/559285.md?page=3)