Gov. Ron DeSantis touts Constitutional Convention to write a Balanced Budget Amendment

[johnwk]

.

See: Governors press for a Balanced Budget Amendment


"DeSantis told reporters during the joint Idaho press conference:

“I am convinced that you are not going to have Congress all of a sudden change its behavior for the long term. I think the reason we’ve gotten into this with respect to fiscal is because there are certain incentives for the people that are in Washington to behave the way they do. And we need to change those incentives.”

He continued:

“If Idaho and Montana join the fight, that gets us to 29 there’s a couple other states that are on the precipice as well. You need 34 states to trigger Article Five, where you would actually write an amendment and then eventually send it to the states for ratification."


I wonder why Governor DeSantis is so interested in triggering Article V, calling for a constitutional convention with the dangers involved, to write a balanced budget amendment, when our Founders provided a specific procedure to deal with any deficits created by Congress's borrowing during the course of a fiscal year. That procedure is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Perhaps Ron DeSantis ought to defend our Founder's remedy, which would create a very real moment of accountability for each State's Congressional Delegation if they should borrow during the course of a fiscal year, which would then require them to bring home a bill to their own State Legislature to pay an apportioned share out of their own State Treasury to extinguish the deficit caused by Congress borrowing.

Keep in mind that every single balanced budget amendment produced since the 1980s, to the best of my knowledge and excluding the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis. Our Founder's remedy, already in our Constitution, would actually do what Ron DeSantis indicates his goal is. So, why has he not mentioned our Founder's procedure to deal with a deficit caused by Congress's borrowing?

.

JWK

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “ Chief Justice, Warren Burger

 

[ReinyDays]

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Only Congress can call for a Convention ... or we'd have had campaign finance reform long ago ... what you're suggesting would call for the overthrow of our current government and replacing it with something that the States can control ...

No way will Congress vote to cut their own throats ... both parties profit too much for any change to the current system ...

 

[PeterPilot]

3 years ago I admired DeSantis. Not no more.

He refuses to enforce Florida Statute 790.166 He is an Israeli agent.

 

[kyzr]

Only Congress can call for a Convention ... or we'd have had campaign finance reform long ago ... what you're suggesting would call for the overthrow of our current government and replacing it with something that the States can control ...

No way will Congress vote to cut their own throats ... both parties profit too much for any change to the current system ...

Congress has no say in the matter.
Nor does the President.
Neither does the Supreme Court.
An Article V Constitutional Convention of States shows the DC clowns who they work for.

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Convention of States Action

Article V offers the only constitutional solution as big as the problem. Together, we can end federal overreach.

conventionofstates.com

 

[Oddball]

Article 5 would be more plausible course of action.

 

[johnwk]

what you're suggesting would call for the overthrow of our current government and replacing it with something that the States can control ...

What exactly are you suggesting I am calling for?

 

[j-mac]

I’ve long since been on board with a balanced budget amendment. If an article 5 convention is the only way to get us there, I say raise the sails, and damn the torpedoes.

 

[Zincwarrior]

What a joke. MAGA Could give a shit about a balanced budget.

 

[johnwk]

Congress has no say in the matter.
Nor does the President.
Neither does the Supreme Court.
An Article V Constitutional Convention of States shows the DC clowns who they work for.

And convening a second Constitutional Convention is a very, very dangerous idea as warned by James Madison.

”… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788


JWK

 

[johnwk]

I’ve long since been on board with a balanced budget amendment.

Do you support the The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?
.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.



NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned “incomes” which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!



“SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year’s deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit.”



NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.



“SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected as done on July 14th, 1798 LINK (at the link enter 62 in the box at the top of the page and then press enter on your keyboare), and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury.”



NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit is:



States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population



The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!



Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:



State`s Pop.

------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.



“SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State’s proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States’ cost of collection.”



NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.



"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.



JWK

 

[Votto]

.

See: Governors press for a Balanced Budget Amendment


"DeSantis told reporters during the joint Idaho press conference:

“I am convinced that you are not going to have Congress all of a sudden change its behavior for the long term. I think the reason we’ve gotten into this with respect to fiscal is because there are certain incentives for the people that are in Washington to behave the way they do. And we need to change those incentives.”

He continued:

“If Idaho and Montana join the fight, that gets us to 29 there’s a couple other states that are on the precipice as well. You need 34 states to trigger Article Five, where you would actually write an amendment and then eventually send it to the states for ratification."


I wonder why Governor DeSantis is so interested in triggering Article V, calling for a constitutional convention with the dangers involved, to write a balanced budget amendment, when our Founders provided a specific procedure to deal with any deficits created by Congress's borrowing during the course of a fiscal year. That procedure is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Perhaps Ron DeSantis ought to defend our Founder's remedy, which would create a very real moment of accountability for each State's Congressional Delegation if they should borrow during the course of a fiscal year, which would then require them to bring home a bill to their own State Legislature to pay an apportioned share out of their own State Treasury to extinguish the deficit caused by Congress borrowing.

Keep in mind that every single balanced budget amendment produced since the 1980s, to the best of my knowledge and excluding the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis. Our Founder's remedy, already in our Constitution, would actually do what Ron DeSantis indicates his goal is. So, why has he not mentioned our Founder's procedure to deal with a deficit caused by Congress's borrowing?

.

JWK

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “ Chief Justice, Warren Burger

I wonder why Governor DeSantis is so interested in triggering Article V, calling for a constitutional convention with the dangers involved, to write a balanced budget amendment, when our Founders provided a specific procedure to deal with any deficits created by Congress's borrowing during the course of a fiscal year

Why is he soooo interested in the Article V solution? Because the Swamp is out of control as they have created the largest debt in human history. Such extremism is exactly why the Article V provision was put in the Constitution by the Founders. You act as though it is not even in the Constitution, why?

It's like term limits. Congress passed term limits for the President after FDR due to the corruption and the fact he refused to go away. But for those in Congress? I reckon there is no such corruption in Congress.



The Article V movement is the ONLY way to force Congress for both term limits and a balanced budget amendment, both of which are favored by voters by well over than half.

 

[TNHarley]

Only Congress can call for a Convention ... or we'd have had campaign finance reform long ago ... what you're suggesting would call for the overthrow of our current government and replacing it with something that the States can control ...

No way will Congress vote to cut their own throats ... both parties profit too much for any change to the current system ...

States can call for a convention as well.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Only Congress can call for a Convention ... or we'd have had campaign finance reform long ago ... what you're suggesting would call for the overthrow of our current government and replacing it with something that the States can control ...

No way will Congress vote to cut their own throats ... both parties profit too much for any change to the current system ...

Two thirds of the State legislatures can also call for a Convention.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

.

See: Governors press for a Balanced Budget Amendment


"DeSantis told reporters during the joint Idaho press conference:

“I am convinced that you are not going to have Congress all of a sudden change its behavior for the long term. I think the reason we’ve gotten into this with respect to fiscal is because there are certain incentives for the people that are in Washington to behave the way they do. And we need to change those incentives.”

He continued:

“If Idaho and Montana join the fight, that gets us to 29 there’s a couple other states that are on the precipice as well. You need 34 states to trigger Article Five, where you would actually write an amendment and then eventually send it to the states for ratification."


I wonder why Governor DeSantis is so interested in triggering Article V, calling for a constitutional convention with the dangers involved, to write a balanced budget amendment, when our Founders provided a specific procedure to deal with any deficits created by Congress's borrowing during the course of a fiscal year. That procedure is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Perhaps Ron DeSantis ought to defend our Founder's remedy, which would create a very real moment of accountability for each State's Congressional Delegation if they should borrow during the course of a fiscal year, which would then require them to bring home a bill to their own State Legislature to pay an apportioned share out of their own State Treasury to extinguish the deficit caused by Congress borrowing.

Keep in mind that every single balanced budget amendment produced since the 1980s, to the best of my knowledge and excluding the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis. Our Founder's remedy, already in our Constitution, would actually do what Ron DeSantis indicates his goal is. So, why has he not mentioned our Founder's procedure to deal with a deficit caused by Congress's borrowing?

.

JWK

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “ Chief Justice, Warren Burger

Good luck with that. There is not much difference between the parties when it comes to spending the country into oblivion.

The only possible way we would ever see a balanced budget amendment is to have term limits. Career politicians will never give up leeching off the tax payer unless they are forced to.

 

[johnwk]

Why is he soooo interested in the Article V solution? Because the Swamp is out of control as they have created the largest debt in human history. Such extremism is exactly why the Article V provision was put in the Constitution by the Founders. You act as though it is not even in the Constitution, why?

Did you miss POST NUMBER 9?

 

[j-mac]

Do you support the The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?
.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.



NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned “incomes” which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!



“SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year’s deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit.”



NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.



“SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected as done on July 14th, 1798 LINK (at the link enter 62 in the box at the top of the page and then press enter on your keyboare), and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury.”



NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit is:



States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population



The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!



Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:



State`s Pop.

------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.



“SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State’s proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States’ cost of collection.”



NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.



"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.



JWK

Sounds interesting…

 

[kyzr]

And convening a second Constitutional Convention is a very, very dangerous idea as warned by James Madison.

”… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788
JWK

That's why the agenda is agreed to before convening. No surprises, no changes, just vote on these "no brainers".

• Fiscal restraints
• Federal power, scope, and jurisdiction
• Term limits

 

[johnwk]

That's why the agenda is agreed to before convening. No surprises, no changes, just vote on these "no brainers".

• Fiscal restraints
• Federal power, scope, and jurisdiction
• Term limits

Once a convention is convened, pre-existing agreements are meaningless as happened during the Convention of 1787 which was called ". . . for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . . ". In the end, the Convention of 1787 produced and entirely new Government with an entirely new Constitution.