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

[kyzr]

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.

True, but that was then, with only 13 states, today we have 50 states and need 3/4 of them to approve any new amendment, or 38 states. I think we can both admit that there are at least 13 red or blue states that could block any changes that were NOT on the agreed upon agenda.

 

[johnwk]

True, but that was then, with only 13 states, today we have 50 states and need 3/4 of them to approve any new amendment, or 38 states. I think we can both admit that there are at least 13 red or blue states that could block any changes that were NOT on the agreed upon agenda.

I'm not sure what your comment has to do with what you quoted from me. Calling a second Constitutional Convention is a very dangerous idea.

1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;

2) Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention and its legitimacy;

3) every snake on earth with self-interests, even foreign powers such as China, would work to have their interests turned into the rule of our "law";

4) an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded States pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states whose pension funds are a ticking time bomb;

6) adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

7) the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings will be in their hands, and could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

SEE:

Articles of Confederation

XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The bottom line is, there are countless unanswered questions concerning the calling of a Convention under Article V, and non can be answered with complete certainty.

 

[kyzr]

I'm not sure what your comment has to do with what you quoted from me. Calling a second Constitutional Convention is a very dangerous idea.

1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;

2) Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention and its legitimacy;

3) every snake on earth with self-interests, even foreign powers such as China, would work to have their interests turned into the rule of our "law";

4) an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded States pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states whose pension funds are a ticking time bomb;

6) adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

7) the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings will be in their hands, and could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

SEE:

Articles of Confederation

XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The bottom line is, there are countless unanswered questions concerning the calling of a Convention under Article V, and non can be answered with complete certainty.

You are not describing the Article V Convention of States that is being promoted.
Please use the simulation to see what the convention would be like.

COS Simulation

cossimulation.org

"Thankfully, the Framers granted us this constitutional provision as the ultimate check and balance for the states to rein in the federal government by calling for a formal meeting (convention) to discuss and propose amendments to limit the federal government’s power. Calling for an Article V Convention is a response to the structural problem of an expansion of the limited and enumerated powers given initially to the federal government by the states."

The "bottom line" is that the Convention of States would be focused on the three areas on the agenda, and only those three areas, knowing that it takes 38 states to approve any changes to the Constitution.

 

[johnwk]

You are not describing the Article V Convention of States that is being promoted.
Please use the simulation to see what the convention would be like.

Our Constitution provides for the following, and only the following:

Article V​

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.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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

Ok… show US where and how Democrats are pushing for a balanced budget, line item veto, or a flat tax? Hell, Democrats don’t even like to cut any spending.

 

[johnwk]

Ok… show US where and how Democrats are pushing for a balanced budget . . .

Our FIFTH COLUMN ring leaders in the Democrat Party, forbid any mention of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, or "representation with a proportional financial obligation" which is what the FSBBA advocates.

 

[Invisibleflash]

.

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 guess he has eyes on 2028.

 

[kyzr]

Our Constitution provides for the following, and only the following:

Article V​

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.

Did you miss the word OR?

The Convention of States is being promoted. If 38 states ratify an Amendment is is done, no president, no senate, no congress, and no Supreme court needed.

 

[johnwk]

Did you miss the word OR?

The Convention of States is being promoted. If 38 states ratify an Amendment is is done, no president, no senate, no congress, and no Supreme court needed.

No, I did not miss the word "or".

"The Congress . . .or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, (CONGRESS) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments." The States do not do the calling.

 

[kyzr]

No, I did not miss the word "or".

"The Congress . . .or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, (CONGRESS) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments." The States do not do the calling.

We probably agree.
1. To call an Article V Convention of States takes 2/3 of (i.e. 33) state legislatures.
2. To pass a new Constitutional Amendment takes 38 states.

 

[johnwk]

We probably agree.
1. To call an Article V Convention of States takes 2/3 of (i.e. 33) state legislatures.
2. To pass a new Constitutional Amendment takes 38 states.

You previously stated ". . . If 38 states ratify an Amendment is is done, no president, no senate, no congress, and no Supreme court needed."

Well, for starters, Congress is certainly needed, to convene a Convention, which includes the Senate. And if Congress (the House and Senate) can't agree on calling the Convention, or rules under which a Convention shall observe, the notion that the Supreme Court is not necessary seems to be unfounded. And this brings us back to what I previously stated:

2) Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention and its legitimacy;

With regard to us agreeing, do you support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

 

[kyzr]

You previously stated ". . . If 38 states ratify an Amendment is is done, no president, no senate, no congress, and no Supreme court needed."

After the Convention is called, that is true.

Well, for starters, Congress is certainly needed, to convene a Convention, which includes the Senate. And if Congress (the House and Senate) can't agree on calling the Convention, or rules under which a Convention shall observe, the notion that the Supreme Court is not necessary seems to be unfounded. And this brings us back to what I previously stated:

The Constitution doesn't say that the USSC has any jobs to do regarding an Article V Convention of States.

2) Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention and its legitimacy;

Nope. After the Convention of States is called, neither the president, nor congress, nor the supreme court are involved. IF a new amendment gets approved by 38 states its ratified, period.

With regard to us agreeing, do you support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

I support a Balanced Budget Amendment. (your link doesn't go anywhere)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-joint-resolution/17

 

[johnwk]

After the Convention is called, that is true.

The Constitution doesn't say that the USSC has any jobs to do regarding an Article V Convention of States.

Nope. After the Convention of States is called, neither the president, nor congress, nor the supreme court are involved. IF a new amendment gets approved by 38 states its ratified, period.

I support a Balanced Budget Amendment. (your link doesn't go anywhere)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-joint-resolution/17

How is a convention convened once ". . . the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . . " is made?

You never answered my question. Do you support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

The Balanced Budget Amendment you support H. J. RES. 17, if adopted would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, and allow Congress to continue to add to the national debt year, after year.

By contrast, the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment does in fact end Congress adding to the national debt, by requiring any borrowing to meet expenses during the course of a fiscal year, to be immediately extinguished by an apportioned direct tax, and is our Founder's intended procedure to deal with such deficiencies.

Here is the latest text of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment with editorial comments.

“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.


Do you support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

JWK



"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. … "Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[kyzr]

How is a convention convened once ". . . the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . . " is made?

You never answered my question. Do you support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

The Balanced Budget Amendment you support H. J. RES. 17, if adopted would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, and allow Congress to continue to add to the national debt year, after year.

By contrast, the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment does in fact end Congress adding to the national debt, by requiring any borrowing to meet expenses during the course of a fiscal year, to be immediately extinguished by an apportioned direct tax, and is our Founder's intended procedure to deal with such deficiencies.

Here is the latest text of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment with editorial comments.

“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.

Do you support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment? JWK

"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. … "Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

I have no opinion on the "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment". I'll wait for the House and Senate to make a recommendation. I'm generally fine with a balanced budget amendment with no loop-holes or more borrowing unless in times of declared war. Democrats would probably vote against it.

 

[g5000]

.

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.”

I agree 100% with DeSantis. I've discussed the corrupt incentives our politicians have for continuing their financial profligacy many, many times.

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

Good luck with that.

You know how we can easily balance the budget?

Ban all tax expenditures. Boom. Not just balanced, but a surplus.

Tax expenditures are the very vehicle of corruption our politicians use to stay in power, and the leading cause of deficits.

“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

Justice Burges if absolutely correct.

From the Department of Be Careful What You Wish For:

The Right keeps demanding a Constitutional Convention. Do you know what the very first item on the agenda would be?


Repealing the Second Amendment.

 

[johnwk]

BTI have no opinion on the "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment". I'll wait for the House and Senate to make a recommendation. I'm generally fine with a balanced budget amendment with no loop-holes or more borrowing unless in times of declared war. Democrats would probably vote against it.

For one who is on board with wanting Congress to balance the budget, I am surprised you have no opinion on either H. J. RES. 17 or the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


BTW, you never answered my question. How is a convention convened once ". . . the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . . " is made? You indicated that neither Congress, the Senate or the Supreme Court gets involved. So, how does the Convention get convened once application is made by the States?

 

[johnwk]

I agree 100% with DeSantis. I've discussed the corrupt incentives our politicians have for continuing their financial profligacy many, many times.

If one does not have a solution, they generally are part of the problem.

What has DeSantis offered to deal with Congress adding to the national debt, year, after year, after year? The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment would put an end to the incentives DeSantis mentions.

BTW, I live in Florida an am a great admirer and supporter of DeSantis.

 

[Independent thinker]

.

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

Fact is, a balanced budget amendment won't fix anything. There has to be times, like war or recession, where you might need to spend more than you have coming in. The Congress critters would just write in, "except in cases of national emergency" and then everything and anything will be declared a national emergency.

 

[johnwk]

Fact is, a balanced budget amendment won't fix anything.

How does the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment not fix the problem of Congress adding to the national debt, year after year?

 

[kyzr]

For one who is on board with wanting Congress to balance the budget, I am surprised you have no opinion on either H. J. RES. 17 or the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

BTW, you never answered my question. How is a convention convened once ". . . the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . . " is made? You indicated that neither Congress, the Senate or the Supreme Court gets involved. So, how does the Convention get convened once application is made by the States?

You would need to contact the guys working on it. I just donate to them. Watch the video below to see the simulated convention.

Convention of States Action

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

conventionofstates.com