Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

[American Horse]

So, basically, if the federal budget is not balanced, our Founders intended the States to cough up the extra cash to meet the need, by raising direct taxes by apportionment.

That is what a balanced budget amendment true to our founding principles would look like.

All those states currently receiving more federal money than they contribute would be in the hurt locker should this be done.

I'm sure Levin will get around to mentioning that someday

I'm certain that he understands that when that happened it would require the congress to fund the essential activities in those states just like Lincoln did with the railroads. It would mean transparency for the first time in many decades about where the money comes from and goes to.

 

[American Horse]

Of course, the frightening aspect of a convention is that it opens up the possibility of making the Constitution radically worse.

The fact is; if a convention is convened and amendments are drafted up they will be separate amendments and will have to stand or fall (by the states) as any amendment would, except that we don't need the involvement of the Senate, the House, or the President.

Mark Levine, nor any other individual will be in charge of the drafting process, the state legislatures will be.

 

[Votto]

So, basically, if the federal budget is not balanced, our Founders intended the States to cough up the extra cash to meet the need, by raising direct taxes by apportionment.

That is what a balanced budget amendment true to our founding principles would look like.

All those states currently receiving more federal money than they contribute would be in the hurt locker should this be done.

I'm sure Levin will get around to mentioning that someday

I'm certain that he understands that when that happened it would require the congress to fund the essential activities in those states just like Lincoln did with the railroads. It would mean transparency for the first time in many decades about where the money comes from and goes to.

On second thought, just stay the course gang.

Like Bush Sr. once said, stay the course, a 1000 points of light or whatever mumbo jumbo progressives use these days.

 

[American Horse]

Just imagine what the world would be like if there had been a balanced budget amendment back in 1940!

Basically, the U.S. could not have afforded to fight the wars in either Europe or or the Pacific, there would have mostly likely negotiated treaties - Germany would have retained most of Western Europe, while Imperial Japan would have retained most of the Pacific and Asia.

In short, while balancing the budget is a good idea when the economy is booming and there are no national crisises (like in 2001 when Bush was President), forcing a balanced budget in times of recession or national crisis is idiotic.

In fact, the entire notion that government deficits are bad is a bunch of bunk dreamed up by wingnuts to create a false political issue. Unfortunately, these people have a tendency to believe their own lies.

Our system of government finance is absolute genius. It is the very reason why the U.S. is the world dominant power economically, militarily, technologically and culturally!

Anyone that wants to force a major change to the system of government finance is either anti-American or an idiot!

Isn't it true that requiring an annual balanced budget would not preclude the government from floating bonds for projects like you mentioned, and then they make the necessary payments to pay those bonds and in effect those payments would become a part of the budget process? I think that's how it works for states which have to balance their budgets annually.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Just imagine what the world would be like if there had been a balanced budget amendment back in 1940!

I see the usual unthinking hysteria is taking hold.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's surprising how many people don't know that a Constitutional convention cannot change the Constitution.

Anything it passes, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Or else it goes in the trash can.

If you think 3/4 of the states would agree to this direct tax or any of the other schemes we keep hearing about, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Just imagine what the world would be like if there had been a balanced budget amendment back in 1940!

Basically, the U.S. could not have afforded to fight the wars in either Europe or or the Pacific, there would have mostly likely negotiated treaties - Germany would have retained most of Western Europe, while Imperial Japan would have retained most of the Pacific and Asia.

In short, while balancing the budget is a good idea when the economy is booming and there are no national crisises (like in 2001 when Bush was President), forcing a balanced budget in times of recession or national crisis is idiotic.

In fact, the entire notion that government deficits are bad is a bunch of bunk dreamed up by wingnuts to create a false political issue. Unfortunately, these people have a tendency to believe their own lies.

Our system of government finance is absolute genius. It is the very reason why the U.S. is the world dominant power economically, militarily, technologically and culturally!

Anyone that wants to force a major change to the system of government finance is either anti-American or an idiot!

I see the usual unthinking hysteria is taking hold.

Is there anybody who feels (possibly excepting the poste above) that any Balanced Budget amendment would ever be passed without language saying "...except for wars declared by Congress" or some such?

NOTE: Language exccpting "wars or National Emrgencies" would be useless, of course, though highly desired by the usual Big-Govt pushers. The United States has been under a continual state of Nation Emergency since March 9, 1933, and every President since then has carefully renewed it, every year, without fail.

 

[Richard-H]

Just imagine what the world would be like if there had been a balanced budget amendment back in 1940!

Basically, the U.S. could not have afforded to fight the wars in either Europe or or the Pacific, there would have mostly likely negotiated treaties - Germany would have retained most of Western Europe, while Imperial Japan would have retained most of the Pacific and Asia.

In short, while balancing the budget is a good idea when the economy is booming and there are no national crisises (like in 2001 when Bush was President), forcing a balanced budget in times of recession or national crisis is idiotic.

In fact, the entire notion that government deficits are bad is a bunch of bunk dreamed up by wingnuts to create a false political issue. Unfortunately, these people have a tendency to believe their own lies.

Our system of government finance is absolute genius. It is the very reason why the U.S. is the world dominant power economically, militarily, technologically and culturally!

Anyone that wants to force a major change to the system of government finance is either anti-American or an idiot!

Progressives like Wilson and FDR used world wars to create a collectivist utopia in the US.

Now they don't even declare war, they just send the troop in and now don't even notify Congress when they do it.

Of course, some of us disdain the collectivist war machines created to defeat the collectivist war machines in Europe. But we must ask ourselves one question, have we become what we first fought against?

Are you seriously suggesting that the present day U.S. is in anyway on par with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? Geez, that's too stupid to comment on!

We have not ever been a "collectivist utopia" - or even close. We have a primarily free enterprise society, there are huge differences is personal wealth that would never be allowed in a "collectivist utopia".

Just because we limit some business freedom and expect those who benefit the most to contribute the most (though they usually don't), does not make us collectivists.

If anything we've become a watered-down version of Mussolini style fascism. The government protects the freedoms of the uber-wealthy at the expense of the common people.

 

[Papageorgio]

Mark Levin is nuts. Every day from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm eastern time he becomes ravenously butthurt and calls it a radio show.

Sometimes I'm driving home and I'll think "hmm... I wonder what conservatives are butthurt about today?" Then I just tune in to Levin for a segment or two and I learn exactly what righties will be whining about on the forum that night.

TRANSLATION: "I can't refute what Mark Levin says, but I hate it anyway. So I'll attack the messenger instead, insult him, insult other normal Americans, call him names, and hope that somebody believes me instead of him."

Turn him on tonight. I'll bet anything that he's as butthurt as ever and he'll be going over the exact same talking points that have been done to death today by every other radio host on whatever station you listen to him on.

Sounds like you are butthurt as ever, and trying to blame someone else.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's surprising how many people don't know that a Constitutional convention cannot change the Constitution.

Anything it passes, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Or else it goes in the trash can.

If you think 3/4 of the states would agree to this direct tax or any of the other schemes we keep hearing about, you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, but liberals love the drama and hope to hell that the people stay dumb so they can continue to trample over others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reality check.

16th and 17th amendments are untouchable, balanced budget just barely if all planets line up, and the idea of mandatory constitutional term limits very doable, which is why the convention will never be held.

 

[Richard-H]

Just imagine what the world would be like if there had been a balanced budget amendment back in 1940!

Basically, the U.S. could not have afforded to fight the wars in either Europe or or the Pacific, there would have mostly likely negotiated treaties - Germany would have retained most of Western Europe, while Imperial Japan would have retained most of the Pacific and Asia.

In short, while balancing the budget is a good idea when the economy is booming and there are no national crisises (like in 2001 when Bush was President), forcing a balanced budget in times of recession or national crisis is idiotic.

In fact, the entire notion that government deficits are bad is a bunch of bunk dreamed up by wingnuts to create a false political issue. Unfortunately, these people have a tendency to believe their own lies.

Our system of government finance is absolute genius. It is the very reason why the U.S. is the world dominant power economically, militarily, technologically and culturally!

Anyone that wants to force a major change to the system of government finance is either anti-American or an idiot!

I see the usual unthinking hysteria is taking hold.

Is there anybody who feels (possibly excepting the poste above) that any Balanced Budget amendment would ever be passed without language saying "...except for wars declared by Congress" or some such?

NOTE: Language exccpting "wars or National Emrgencies" would be useless, of course, though highly desired by the usual Big-Govt pushers. The United States has been under a continual state of Nation Emergency since March 9, 1933, and every President since then has carefully renewed it, every year, without fail.

The fact is that every Congress and President has the opportunity to balance the budget. For the most pert they have chosen not to. That's because government deficits are not harmful - in fact they are very good for the economy.

Given out current federal debt, if that debt was harmful, the U.S. would have been in a state of economic crisis since 1933. In fact, for most of the period since 1933, the U.S. has enjoyed the greatest economy that the world has ever known. It's therefore obvious, to anyone with a brain, that government debt is NOT harmful to our economy.

What is harmful is the amount of control that big money has over our political system - and the increasing disparity in wealth. What we NEED is a constitutional amendment that would eliminate big money contributions to political campaigns.

Once big money no longer controlled the election process, politicians would be free to act in the best interests of the American People and could make incremental improvements to the tax code and the relationship between the government and the financial sector.

 

[Flopper]

So, basically, if the federal budget is not balanced, our Founders intended the States to cough up the extra cash to meet the need, by raising direct taxes by apportionment.

That is what a balanced budget amendment true to our founding principles would look like.

All those states currently receiving more federal money than they contribute would be in the hurt locker should this be done.

That's a good point. Many of the red states that might vote for calling a convention would be the ones hurt the most by a balanced budget amendment which makes it very unlikely that Republicans could get all red state legislatures to call for a convention.

However, the real problems with calling a constitution convention is a matter of numbers. It would take 34 state legislatures just to call a convention and 38 to ratify anything they came up with. Currently there are 27 republican controlled legislatures, 17 democrat controlled, and 6 split. So even if Republicans could get all 6 states with split control of their legislature to vote to call a convention, there still wouldn't be enough votes. Even if a convention was called, Republicans would have to convince 4 democrat controlled legislatures plus all republican legislatures and all split controlled legislatures to vote for the amendment(s). In addition it would probably take 10 years to get a vote from all legislatures and probably 10 more to get a ratification vote. In short, it would be a waste of time to even consider it.

List of United States state legislatures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article V, U.S. Constitution

 

[Richard-H]

Who needs a constitutional convention to change the Constitution? There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution without ever having a Constitutional convention.

The only realistic purpose of a Constitutional convention is to throw out the current constitution and write a new on from scratch. I do not believe anyone trusts anyone else enough to support that idea.

Seriously, the only thing we need are laws (possibly a single constitutional amendment) that gets big money out of the electoral process. Once that's accomplished the politicians will be free to make whatever changes the believe to be best for the American people, including Constitutional amendments.

Until that happens, the politicians will remain beholden to big money and any changes in the constitution will be made only for the benefit of big money.

First we need to insure that the politicians are beholden to the American people and no one else, then we can consider supporting changes to the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Get constitutional term limits passed for federal office, then the rest is possible.

 

[Flopper]

Reality check.

16th and 17th amendments are untouchable, balanced budget just barely if all planets line up, and the idea of mandatory constitutional term limits very doable, which is why the convention will never be held.

A balance budget amendment without a limit on taxes would result in tax increases that Republicans would not support. With a tax limitation, the problem becomes how does the government fulfill it's constitutional responsibilities such as defending the country or dealing with a catastrophic event without money to do so. This would surely bring on a constitutional crises.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only a frothing leftist moron (redundant, I know) calls a legitimate process written into our Nation's political process, EVIL.

And only an ignorant rightist would seek to abuse that process for purely partisan reasons.

Conservatives advocating for a ‘Constitutional convention’ is nothing more than a republican temper-tantrum, solely the consequence of losing presidential elections and Supreme Court cases, having nothing to do whatsoever with seeking ‘liberty’ or ‘justice.’

The Constitution is currently functioning as intended by the Framers, and the Constitution’s case law comports with that of the Framers’ original intent, there is no need to ‘replace’ it, and those wishing to do so desire only to advantage themselves at the expense of other Americans’ inalienable rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Reality check.

16th and 17th amendments are untouchable, balanced budget just barely if all planets line up, and the idea of mandatory constitutional term limits very doable, which is why the convention will never be held.

A balance budget amendment without a limit on taxes would result in tax increases that Republicans would not support. With a tax limitation, the problem becomes how does the government fulfill it's constitutional responsibilities such as defending the country or dealing with a catastrophic event without money to do so. This would surely bring on a constitutional crises.

True, such an ‘amendment’ is about inane partisan politics, and has no business being part of the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

I think focusing on spending is missing the point. If the goal is to restore limited government, we need to address the liberal interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause head on, deleting it or clarifying it as necessary. Likewise with the "Commerce" clause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's surprising how many people don't know that a Constitutional convention cannot change the Constitution.

Anything it passes, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Or else it goes in the trash can.

If you think 3/4 of the states would agree to this direct tax or any of the other schemes we keep hearing about, you haven't been paying attention.

As usual you miss the point.

The issue has nothing to do with an actual convention being convened, the issue has to do with the fact that many on the right have such disdain and ignorance of Constitutional case law that they would broach the subject to begin with.