April 28, 2011 - 1:43 pm
Not for Florida’s budget. As all other states and unlike Washington DC, Florida has a balanced budget because it has to. It can’t just print money whenever it wants to. So the Florida Senate is hoping to force Washington to balance its budget, as Senate president Mike Haridopolos explains in this clip.
The measure specifically calls for a single issue constitutional convention, the single issue being amending the US Constitution to mandate a balanced federal budget, with a few built-in exceptions for crises and war. Twenty-one other states have already passed similar bills, and several Texas leaders have publicly supported it as well.
But is it actually possible to limit the agenda of a constitutional convention to a single issue successfully? I’m afraid that, once convened, it’s open season for every jackwagon with the vaguest of similarities to a macaque to begin ritual feces flinging for every, and I mean *EVERY* socio-fascist cause on the planet. You know they will.
JS,
It’s entirely understandable that the American public (including yourself) would be hesitant to call a convention even for the vital purpose of REQUIRING the Federal Government to balance our national budget. And for the record, no, it’s not really possible to limit
a Federal Convention to a single subject for amendments if they were
intent on passing particular proposals. HOWEVER, it is worth noting that 38 states are required to ratify ANY and EVERY amendment proposed by Congress or a Convention, which means that ANY 13 states can block ratification of ANY and ALL proposals sent to the states. Though not a perfect measure, we can take some comfort that 13 is exactly the number of states that haven’t voted for a single Democrat in the last 20 years in a Presidential election. That’s the SAME 13 states, 5 times in a row, with at least 5 additional states voting Republican in EACH case.
In addition, despite current theories to the contrary, voting within a constitutional convention would be by STATE not by popular vote. Can you really imagine that the 41 least populous states would allow the 9 that constitute a popular majority to OUTVOTE them? Not a chance. So Wyoming, Alasks, Utah, Idaho and EACH of the other states have the same power as California or New York. EACH. No Leftie amendments are getting through THAT confab.
So while I do completely understand your anger at the lefties who have misinterpreted our form of government into something totally different than what the Founders intended, Americans can no longer allow themselves to do nothing while the country falls apart.
Some day, not soon, but some day, after Obama is long gone, the Dems will win another Presidential election. When that day comes, if Constitutional limitations are not in place, then God help us.
And finally, I would assert that a convention doesn’t need to held, only threatened, and that if the public were to be consulted directly through referenda, the Congress would have no choice, but to send a BBA to the states for ratification, because at that point, there’d be little to hold the 34th state from calling one.
This seems like it’s in vain, though.
Sure, they pass a BB amendment, but that doesn’t actually LIMIT spending. The federal government can always perform its “redistribution” programs to a state, and it’s a huge political shot in the foot to reject those funds. Obviously the goal is to show the federal government that states won’t fall apart at the seams because they aren’t pumping ridiculous amounts of money into “help” or whatever they advertise. Seems easy enough for the federal gov’t to undermine, though.
Joe,
It may seem that way, and government spending is almost certainly the toughest issue this country has dealt with in a long time. I haven’t read any proposal that I’d consider perfect, however, were I to write a BBA, it would include at least 3 items: A) Require across-the-board spending reductions as were required in the late 80′s under the Gramm-Rudman legislation, B) Cap Income taxes at a certain percentage subject only to a declaration of War, and C) Grant states the power to sue the Federal Government for 2/3 of the cost of all Federal mandates. When all the interests realize they’ll lose if they don’t make the tough decisions they’ll be forced up to the plate. And if states can begin to dig there way out these near-permanent debt cycles, then perhaps we can better make case that most government spending should occur where it would be done most responibly: at the state level.
I’m not pretending these are perfect solutions, but it seems to me the non-consitutional options have been played out.
A balanced budget amendment is inadequate. The Feds can always increase taxes to balance the budget. What has to be done is to limit spending to a percentage of GDP to restrain the Fed.
But if the States are going to have a constitutional convention (can I fantasize?) I would recommend the following four (or five) additional topics:
1: Provide a definition of the Commerce Clause that returns the clause to the Founding Fathers’ original intent;
2: Require the executive branch to present to Congress any change in rules and regulations it wants to put into effect, and require Congress to pass such requested changes to rules and regulations as a bill to be signed by the President;
3: Restrict Congress to approving bills in which all immediate rules and regulations to implement the bill have been spelled out (in excruciating detail);
4: Repeal the 17th Amendment (and possibly the 16th).
Jack,
The ideas you suggest are provocative and therefore definately worthy of inclusion in the kinds of discussions that must be held in the run up to the 2012 election.
I especially favor your second proposal as it addresses the incredible transfer of power from Congress to the Administration over the last several decades in the form of Executive regulations.
If I may offer a counterproposal: 80 years ago the Congress found novel ways of including provisions in bills that would give congressional committees the power to oversee executive departments by withholding funds appropriated in law. These provisions worked for over half a century until 1982 when the left-leaning majority on the Supreme Court overturned Congress’ power to include these provisions in bills sent to the President. This was the notorious INS vs. Chadha decision. I don’t know why the courts haven’t overturned this since. The Court is at least 2 Justices more conservative than it was. Which is why an amendment may be the only way of addressing this.
Judge Andrew Napolitano (of Fox News fame) in his book, “Constitution in Exile,” proposed the wording be amended from, “to regulate commerce among the several states,” to instead read, “to keep Commerce regular between the several states,” in order to address the vast expansion of government. My only difficulty with that is that I suspect it’s not the language of the Constitution that is so easily misconstrued, but rather the strong intention of liberals on the court to so misinterpret.