Posted on 04/05/2015 7:35:49 AM PDT by cotton1706
Conservative state legislators frustrated with the gridlock in Washington are increasingly turning to a plan to call a convention to consider a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution — an event that would be unprecedented in American history and one that could, some opponents predict, lead to complete political chaos.
Legislators in 27 states have passed applications for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. Proponents of a balanced budget requirement are planning to push for new applications in nine other states where Republicans control both chambers of the legislature.
If those applications pass in seven of the nine targeted states, it would bring the number of applications up to 34, meeting the two-thirds requirement under Article V of the Constitution to force Congress to call a convention.
What happens next is anyone’s guess.
“There really isn’t much of a precedent. We’ll be charting new waters,” said Utah Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, a Republican and a supporter of a constitutional convention. Utah became the 26th state to issue an application last month. North and South Dakota have also approved applications this year.
The problem is that while the Constitution allows amendments to be adopted and sent to the states by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the states, the founding document is silent on how such a convention would operate. How many delegates each state would receive, the rules under which a convention would operate and who would set the agenda would be left up to Congress — all of those would be open questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at standard.net ...
The budget will not be balanced, an amendment isn’t going to do anything. Congress doesn’t want to balance the budget, if they did they would have done it by now.
I agree.
While I definitely agree with that, i also think that if we cannot get our government to work for us in a manner that benefits us as citizens as opposed to harming us, then it’s time to dismantle the entire thing.
But that is the problem they have. If they "tax the rich" enough to fully pay for their pet programs, the few rich that don't move their wealth to other countries will go broke. You could tax the "evil rich" at 100% and still not be able to pay for all of the leftist programs we have right now. The only way they are supported right now is by massive borrowing and by taking the true cost of Social Security and Medicare off the budget.
One common misperception is that this would be a "Constitutional Convention", meaning that the whole of the Constitution would be up for possible revision. That is incorrect. This would be an Article 5 convention. Article 5 only allows the calling of the convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, not to rewrite the Constitution. And any amendments proposed by the convention would still have to go through the normal ratification process, meaning 38 states would have to ratify any amendments proposed. Can you imagine 38 states ratifying amendments abolishing the 1st and 2nd amendments?
The only amendment I really need to see is the one that says that all laws passed by congress shall apply equally to themselves—no exceptions, no special considerations.
I have decidedly mixed feelings about this. The country is very closely divided along ideological grounds. The idea that this will be a conservative convention fixing all of our problems is probably not realistic. A constitutional convention is potentially dangerous. Calling a convention with no idea what will happen or what it might do could be disastrous.
K
You are partly correct. Any amendments passed would still need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. So there is that safeguard. But there really is no limit on what the convention can propose. Which is to say that yes, the entire Constitution is theoretically open to revision.
And again, too many people are assuming this will be a conservative convention. Given how evenly divided the country is, that is a very unrealistic assumption. A convention is potentially dangerous.
The ratification process protects us from a run away convention. IMHO a balanced budget amendment is NOT what we need initially. The first order of business is the repeal of the 17th amendment. Doing so doing so will reestablish a strong state presence in the national legislature. I believe much of the mischief the federal government practices will be corrected by this simple change. Including correction of the endlessly active federal courts and agencies.
Yeh!
Which is EXACTLY what we need. Time to get rid of these scumbags once and for all. By whatever means.
“”IMHO a balanced budget amendment is NOT what we need initially.
There is not a snowball’s chance in the hot stinky bad place of that happening. A constitutional convention would not be a Conservative only affair. And there is almost no public support.
Ooops my previous comment was intended to reply to this line... “The first order of business is the repeal of the 17th amendment.”
I have heard of analysis that shows if we taxed the “rich” at 100% and confiscated their wealth, we could fund the government for less than three months. Balancing the budget by taxing the rich is foolish. It is a an appeal to an emotional marxist attack upon private property. As is so much of the nonsense going on today. Happy Easter All!
What’s to fear from a constitutional convention convened to create a balanced budget amendment?
That is a deception I am afraid. Once the convention is opened then the entire constitution will be up for amendment.
Congress will have a field day with it. And you think you have problems now.
Conventions were for an intelligent and moral people interested in maintaining their freedom. Not many of those people exist today. The country is full ijiots.
Horseshit. Congress has nothing to do with any of these issues. All Congress has a say in the the time and place. That’s it.
Do you think the average recipient cares about that? I think they do not.
BBA doesn’t curtail profligate spending, it only mandates a balanced budged. It relies on the hope that increased taxation would become politically unpopular. I think that unpopularity threshold is very very high, the mobocracy will demand more and more until there is nothing but high taxes and poverty.
The simplest is to let each state send as many delegates as it wants. Who cares how many delegates each state sends to the convention? Each state still gets one and only one vote.
Duke, you need to educate yourself on the process. Congress has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to say about the running of the Convention. This is a Convention of the STATES. Congress is NOT INVOLVED beyond setting the date and location.
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.