Posted on 03/27/2015 6:04:11 AM PDT by cotton1706
North Dakota has joined 26 other states in passing a resolution calling for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, though some Republican lawmakers feel it doesn’t go far enough to rein in Congress and other branches of the federal government.
The state Senate passed a resolution Tuesday asking Congress to call a convention for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.
“If we want fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., it has to come from the states. We have to be bold in our approach to them,” said Sen. Dick Dever, R-Bismarck, a sponsor of the resolution.
Under Article V of the Constitution, legislatures in 34 states must pass resolutions to call for a convention for proposing amendments. It takes 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment.
The Senate approved House Concurrent Resolution 3015 by a 29-17 vote largely along party lines, becoming the 27th state to adopt such a resolution, according to the group Balanced Budget Forever.
The House had passed the resolution 72-20 last month.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedickinsonpress.com ...
The state senate is reconsidering a broader resolution passed by it's house which, if passed, would make it the 4th state to endorse a general convention, that is, one that could consider more amendments.
But that’s both racist and sexist. I wonder if Hillary’s team has also told reporters that “balanced” and “budget” are not to be used in her presence?
The only good balanced budget amendment would call for a maximum percentage of GDP allowed for use by the Federal Government.
Any other form would just give cover to increased taxes and fees.
The only good balanced budget amendment would call for a maximum percentage of GDP allowed for use by the Federal Government.
Any other form would just give cover to increased taxes and fees.
I don’t know if that’s true. For instance, if a balanced budget amendment set federal income tax rates, and then required that any legislation to increase those rates would require a 2/3 majority of both houses to pass, that might be a workable solution.
Why would we ingrane a specific tax rate into law. Even doing so wouldn’t change the ability of the Congress to require larger fees and other forms of taxes (National Sales tax) to ‘comply’ with the balanced budget amendment.
No! The only viable solution is a hard cap on the percentage of GDP available for Federal Government use.
An exception could be made for military spending during times of Declared War against a specific or several nation states.
A year ago, the 34th application for an Amendments Convention on the single topic of a balanced budget amendment crossed the desk of the Archivist of the United States, prompting an official memorandum to the leadership of Congress. Boehner asked legal counsel and the Archivist about the status of 8 applications that had been rescinded by the states that had issued them. The decision was that these were no longer operative, and that reduced the count to 26.
Yesterday, North Dakota became the 27th state to apply for an Amendments Convention to address a balanced budget amendment, along with language reining in their delegates to prevent a runaway convention addressing subjects not authorized by the state.
The North Dakota Legislature voted down an application for an Amendments Convention using Georgia's language extracted form Mark Levin's book.
So here's the count thus far.
Applications for an Amendments Convention to consider a balanced budget amendment: 27 down, 7 to go.
Applications for an Amendments Convention to consider a group of topics related to Mark Levin's book: 3 down, 31 to go.
Thanks!
In 1789 we started off as a federal republic.
One hundred and two years ago we foolishly turned it into a democratic republic.
Now, we have neither.
Applications for an Amendments Convention to consider a group of topics related to Mark Levin's book: 3 down, 31 to go.
Thanks for the update Publius.
Unless it contains a low tax ceiling, like 15%, a balanced budget amendment would be a disastrous mistake because it would justify the feds raising taxes without censure - just what the Leftists want - and does NOTHING to deal with the REAL PROBLEM: unchecked increase in government size and spending - also just what the Leftists want.
The issue how to knock out the 80% of the $4 trillion federal government which is unconstitutional.
Contrary to the fears of many, a large federal deficit doesn't kill the economy as has been seen in the last few years. We've had a growing economy (howbeit very slow for other federal government-caused reasons) while we've had unprecedented and deliberate federal deficits.
But the ONE thing that will kill our economy and create poverty and hardship is HIGHER TAXES. That is an economy killer and must be avoided. LOWER TAXES, not a lower deficit, is what will energize the economy.
Politicians will always spend more than they get but they can only go so far in doing so. The key to cutting deficits is drastically reducing the size of government, so their deficit spending is relatively small.
Is the Citizens for Self-Governance group still spearheading the Mark Levine version of the Article V effort?
I honestly don’t know.
Shortly after Levin’s book came out, Phyllis Schlafly reached into her filing cabinet and dragged out a yellowed column from the 1970’s, about the dangers of a “ConCon”—a “runaway Convention.” Too many others are falling for the same misdirected fear-mongering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.