Balanced Budget Amendment
There are several excuses being used for calling a Con-Con but the main reason for wanting the convention—since the 1970s—is to initiate a “Balanced Budget Amendment.” There are several problems, though, with this thinking.
Let’s look at a recent article at News With Views. STATES NEED BUDGETS - BUT ENUMERATED POWERS LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING by Publius Huldah.
“The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of delegated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.[1]
And if you read your State Constitution, you will see that those who ratified it [foolishly] created a State government of general and unlimited powers subject only to the exceptions carved out by its Declaration of Rights.[2]
Since State governments were created to possess general and unlimited powers, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything they want.[2] Accordingly, State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.
But Federal Spending is limited by the Enumerated Powers
The federal Constitution lists the items Congress is permitted to spend money on. If you read through the federal Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress is lawfully authorized to spend money. Here is the list:
• The Census (Art. I, §2, cl. 3)
• Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate (Art. I, §5, cl. 3)
• Salaries of Senators and Representatives (Art. I, § 6, cl. 1)
• Salaries of civil officers of the United States (Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §1, cl. 7)
• Pay the Debts (Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & Art. VI, cl.1)
• Pay tax collectors (Art. I, §8, cl.1)
• Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with Indian Tribes (Art. I, §8, cl.3)[3]
• Immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
• The mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
• Attorney General to handle the small amount of authorized federal litigation involving the national government (e.g., Art. I, §8, cls. 6 & 10)
• Post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
• Patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
• Federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9 & Art. III, §1)
• Military and Citizens’ Militia (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
• Since Congress has general legislative authority over the federal enclaves listed in Art. I, §8, next to last clause, Congress has broad spending authority over the tiny geographical areas listed in this clause.
• The President’s entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries (Art. II, §3); and
• Since Congress had general legislative authority over the Western Territory before it was broken up into States, Congress could appropriate funds for the US Marshalls, federal judges, and the like for that Territory (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2).”
Publius Huldah goes on to explain.
“All versions of a BBA transform our federal Constitution from one which created a national government with only a few enumerated powers to a national government of general and unlimited powers. This is because BBAs substitute a “budget” for the enumerated powers; and accordingly, the national government would become lawfully authorized to spend money on whatever they put in the Budget!
That unlimited spending power is what would transform the national government into one of general and unlimited powers.
To add insult to injury, while all versions of a BBA pretend to limit spending; they actually permit increases in spending and increases in debt whenever a majority votes to do so.[6]”
Publius Huldah concludes this article with this plea.
“When the history of our time is written, do not let it be said that the American People were too lazy and stupid to be free. Do not let tricksters take away our glorious Heritage. Wake up! Stop applications for a convention for a BBA from being passed in your State. If your State has already passed such an application, educate your State legislators and get them to rescind it.”
Read more at http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah135.htm. The article contains lots of links, too.
Now, let’s sort of recap all this.
Suppose the states actually get a Balanced Budget Amendment initiated through a convention process and it subsequently gets ratified by three-fourths of the states. What then?! When the Congress, the President, and the entire federal government blatantly ignore the entire existing Constitution, why would they pay any attention to this one little amendment?
There is no need for a federal budget—period! The federal government is Constitutionally limited to spending only what is necessary to carry out its enumerated duties. In fact, as Publius Huldah points out, a budget amendment will have the effect of granting more spending rights to the federal government.
Let’s consider the reasons that spending has not been controlled in the past (and currently). When the federal government has unlimited amounts of (confiscated) money, it and the individuals running the government have unlimited authority and control over all matters both foreign and domestic. They will not willingly surrender this power. If they wanted to curtail their spending, they would have already done it. They haven’t done it because, very simply, limiting spending would mean limiting their opportunities for power and control.
The same is true of state government officials who want to maintain their own power structures. Jackie Patru at Sweet Liberty says,
“State legislators complain that the federal government has usurped state powers. That is not so. In the past - and on-going - legislators have voted away their power, many because of indolence, ignorance or irresponsibility; others because of greed, status and/or power. Sadly, the majority of the legislative "leaders" are in the pockets or clutches of those manipulators who have promulgated this usurpation.”
The states, though, are confused. They want to grab all the money and power that trickles down to them from the federal government; they go along with federal programs because they are afraid to lose any grants, etc. when, in truth, most of that power and money rightfully belongs to them. It is their right to keep their state’s money and provide services within their own state. It is in their power to stop the out-of-control spending and federal over-reach by simply refusing to participate.
Instead of asking the legislators to do this “grand” act of taking back power from the federal government through a Con-Con, first ask them to accomplish some “little” tasks of saying “No” to the Feds. Find out if they are serious Constitutionists or if they are simply grandstanding for the globalist cause. Ask them to nullify some un-Constitutional over-reaches of the Feds—whether Laws from Congress, opinions from the Courts, or edicts from the President.
The main reason for states not standing up to the feds is that a money stream would be in jeopardy. That’s one method the Feds use for getting compliance. Several years ago, a Colorado legislator named Charles Duke got a “Tenth Amendment Resolution” passed in his state. That was closely followed by Colorado refusing to follow some federal unfunded mandate. This caused the feds to declare that they would withhold Colorado's roads revenue. Colorado told the feds they would just stop sending gas taxes to Washington. I assume this was all worked out through compromises because I never heard anymore about it.
Just as the national legislators are loath to do anything that would diminish their power, authority, and wealth, the state legislators also are unwilling to sever the pipelines that fill their trough. But, bring it on down to an individual level. What programs are YOU willing to give up? NO attempt at balancing the budget or limiting spending will succeed unless programs are cut. And, it will hurt! Have we got ourselves entangled in such a web of programs and promises that nothing short of destroying our country and building a new one on its ruins will work?
Let’s look at a recent article at News With Views. STATES NEED BUDGETS - BUT ENUMERATED POWERS LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING by Publius Huldah.
“The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of delegated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.[1]
And if you read your State Constitution, you will see that those who ratified it [foolishly] created a State government of general and unlimited powers subject only to the exceptions carved out by its Declaration of Rights.[2]
Since State governments were created to possess general and unlimited powers, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything they want.[2] Accordingly, State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.
But Federal Spending is limited by the Enumerated Powers
The federal Constitution lists the items Congress is permitted to spend money on. If you read through the federal Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress is lawfully authorized to spend money. Here is the list:
• The Census (Art. I, §2, cl. 3)
• Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate (Art. I, §5, cl. 3)
• Salaries of Senators and Representatives (Art. I, § 6, cl. 1)
• Salaries of civil officers of the United States (Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §1, cl. 7)
• Pay the Debts (Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & Art. VI, cl.1)
• Pay tax collectors (Art. I, §8, cl.1)
• Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with Indian Tribes (Art. I, §8, cl.3)[3]
• Immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
• The mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
• Attorney General to handle the small amount of authorized federal litigation involving the national government (e.g., Art. I, §8, cls. 6 & 10)
• Post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
• Patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
• Federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9 & Art. III, §1)
• Military and Citizens’ Militia (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
• Since Congress has general legislative authority over the federal enclaves listed in Art. I, §8, next to last clause, Congress has broad spending authority over the tiny geographical areas listed in this clause.
• The President’s entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries (Art. II, §3); and
• Since Congress had general legislative authority over the Western Territory before it was broken up into States, Congress could appropriate funds for the US Marshalls, federal judges, and the like for that Territory (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2).”
Publius Huldah goes on to explain.
“All versions of a BBA transform our federal Constitution from one which created a national government with only a few enumerated powers to a national government of general and unlimited powers. This is because BBAs substitute a “budget” for the enumerated powers; and accordingly, the national government would become lawfully authorized to spend money on whatever they put in the Budget!
That unlimited spending power is what would transform the national government into one of general and unlimited powers.
To add insult to injury, while all versions of a BBA pretend to limit spending; they actually permit increases in spending and increases in debt whenever a majority votes to do so.[6]”
Publius Huldah concludes this article with this plea.
“When the history of our time is written, do not let it be said that the American People were too lazy and stupid to be free. Do not let tricksters take away our glorious Heritage. Wake up! Stop applications for a convention for a BBA from being passed in your State. If your State has already passed such an application, educate your State legislators and get them to rescind it.”
Read more at http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah135.htm. The article contains lots of links, too.
Now, let’s sort of recap all this.
Suppose the states actually get a Balanced Budget Amendment initiated through a convention process and it subsequently gets ratified by three-fourths of the states. What then?! When the Congress, the President, and the entire federal government blatantly ignore the entire existing Constitution, why would they pay any attention to this one little amendment?
There is no need for a federal budget—period! The federal government is Constitutionally limited to spending only what is necessary to carry out its enumerated duties. In fact, as Publius Huldah points out, a budget amendment will have the effect of granting more spending rights to the federal government.
Let’s consider the reasons that spending has not been controlled in the past (and currently). When the federal government has unlimited amounts of (confiscated) money, it and the individuals running the government have unlimited authority and control over all matters both foreign and domestic. They will not willingly surrender this power. If they wanted to curtail their spending, they would have already done it. They haven’t done it because, very simply, limiting spending would mean limiting their opportunities for power and control.
The same is true of state government officials who want to maintain their own power structures. Jackie Patru at Sweet Liberty says,
“State legislators complain that the federal government has usurped state powers. That is not so. In the past - and on-going - legislators have voted away their power, many because of indolence, ignorance or irresponsibility; others because of greed, status and/or power. Sadly, the majority of the legislative "leaders" are in the pockets or clutches of those manipulators who have promulgated this usurpation.”
The states, though, are confused. They want to grab all the money and power that trickles down to them from the federal government; they go along with federal programs because they are afraid to lose any grants, etc. when, in truth, most of that power and money rightfully belongs to them. It is their right to keep their state’s money and provide services within their own state. It is in their power to stop the out-of-control spending and federal over-reach by simply refusing to participate.
Instead of asking the legislators to do this “grand” act of taking back power from the federal government through a Con-Con, first ask them to accomplish some “little” tasks of saying “No” to the Feds. Find out if they are serious Constitutionists or if they are simply grandstanding for the globalist cause. Ask them to nullify some un-Constitutional over-reaches of the Feds—whether Laws from Congress, opinions from the Courts, or edicts from the President.
The main reason for states not standing up to the feds is that a money stream would be in jeopardy. That’s one method the Feds use for getting compliance. Several years ago, a Colorado legislator named Charles Duke got a “Tenth Amendment Resolution” passed in his state. That was closely followed by Colorado refusing to follow some federal unfunded mandate. This caused the feds to declare that they would withhold Colorado's roads revenue. Colorado told the feds they would just stop sending gas taxes to Washington. I assume this was all worked out through compromises because I never heard anymore about it.
Just as the national legislators are loath to do anything that would diminish their power, authority, and wealth, the state legislators also are unwilling to sever the pipelines that fill their trough. But, bring it on down to an individual level. What programs are YOU willing to give up? NO attempt at balancing the budget or limiting spending will succeed unless programs are cut. And, it will hurt! Have we got ourselves entangled in such a web of programs and promises that nothing short of destroying our country and building a new one on its ruins will work?