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

[kyzr]

That wording is not in the Constitution. Additionally, you just confirmed you were in error when indicating that neither Congress, the Senate or the Supreme Court gets involved once ". . . the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States . . . " is met. Congress, both the House and Senate get involved. And to what extent they get involved is not mentioned in the Constitution, which suggests our Supreme Court will also get involved once lawfare begins.
The fact is, Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT which now causes our misery] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention and its legitimacy.

We'll see what happens after enough states call for an Article V Convention of States.
If Republicans control the House its obvious that the convention would be called, if democrats control the House I'm not so sure.

The "fact is" that Congress and the Supreme Court are not involved after the COS is called by congress. It is an Article V STATE function.

 

[kyzr]

What you say above indicates you would support a "balanced budget amendment" even if it made constitutional, what Congress is currently doing. That, my friend, is absurd thinking.

You lost me on that sentence. What is the rationale'?

 

[johnwk]

The "fact is" that Congress and the Supreme Court are not involved after the COS is called by congress.

But the fact remains, once ". . . the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States . . . " is met, Congress, both the House and Senate are involved in calling the Convention, and if disputes arise concerning the particulars under which Congress calls for the Convention, then our Supreme Court also becomes involved.

The bottom line is, Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT which now causes our misery] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the calling of a Convention and the rulemaking involved.

 

[kyzr]

But the fact remains, once ". . . the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States . . . " is met, Congress, both the House and Senate are involved in calling the Convention, and if disputes arise concerning the particulars under which Congress calls for the Convention, then our Supreme Court also becomes involved.

The bottom line is, Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT which now causes our misery] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the calling of a Convention and the rulemaking involved.

The bottom line is that Article V limits the powers congress and the USSC have regarding a Constitutional COS.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Bubba didn't finish Middle School, and now he can't read ... the States can only request a Convention ... Article 5 CLEARLY says The Congress shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ... NOT the States ...

Dream on Bubba ... Liberals will always be smarter than you ...

2/3rds of States Legislators can request a Convention from Congress. It would be stupid of Congress to ignore that.

 

[PeterPilot]

Shut up, retard. Youre fuckin gay.

So you would rather not hear about the Governor not enforcing Florida Statutes? You're happy that he keeps biological weapons on the shelves in drug stores, hospitals and doctors offices?

 

[johnwk]

The bottom line is that Article V limits the powers congress and the USSC have regarding a Constitutional COS.

That is not what is stated in our Constitution. That is your made up opinion.

Article V merely states If two thirds of the States make application for a convention for proposing amendments, Congress shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.

So, if disputes arise concerning the particulars under which Congress calls for the Convention, what happens? Would our Supreme Court not get involved? Our existing Constitution seems to put that ball in the hands of our Supreme Court. See Article Three, Section Two.



So, the bottom line is, Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT which now causes our misery] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the calling of a Convention and the rulemaking involved.

Stop making shit up.

 

[johnwk]

You lost me on that sentence. What is the rationale'?

You have stated you support a “balanced budget amendment”. Suppose the BBA which is proposed would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual federal budget (which is what H. J. RES. 17 would do if adopted), would you support that balanced budget amendment?

 

[kyzr]

That is not what is stated in our Constitution. That is your made up opinion.
Article V merely states If two thirds of the States make application for a convention for proposing amendments, Congress shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.

Exactly.

So, if disputes arise concerning the particulars under which Congress calls for the Convention, what happens? Would our Supreme Court not get involved? Our existing Constitution seems to put that ball in the hands of our Supreme Court. See Article Three, Section Two.

Congress is "majority rules". "If no disputes arise" no need for the courts.

So, the bottom line is, Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT which now causes our misery] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the calling of a Convention and the rule-making involved. Stop making shit up.

You stop making shit up. A Convention of STATES is just that. A Convention of States. If 38 can agree on a new Amendment it happens, if not it doesn't. I doubt that 38 states can agree on anything, we'll see.

 

[kyzr]

You have stated you support a “balanced budget amendment”. Suppose the BBA which is proposed would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual federal budget (which is what H. J. RES. 17 would do if adopted), would you support that balanced budget amendment?

1. A BBA? or the "Big Beautiful Bill"?

2. The (2026) BBB is supposed to raise the Debt Limit $4T. I'm not a fan of $4T, I'd give them $1T.

3. I would support the COS Balanced Budget Amendment. But you are wrong about H.J.Res 17.
H.J Res 17 Removes the deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment. It has nothing to do with balanced budgets.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/17

 

[johnwk]

H.J Res 17 Removes the deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment. It has nothing to do with balanced budgets.

My goodness, you certainly love to make shit up and deflect from your own words.

In POST 32 you wrote:

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

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

The link you provided brings us to:

H.J.Res.17 - Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


Why must you always make up crap?

 

[kyzr]

My goodness, you certainly love to make shit up and deflect from your own words.
In POST 32 you wrote:
I support a Balanced Budget Amendment. (your link doesn't go anywhere)

I wasn't deflecting. Nor making shit up.
HRs start at #1 every year, so when I googled it I got different years. (2021 & 2025)
Yes i support the 2025 HR17 for a balanced budget.

 

[johnwk]

I wasn't deflecting. Nor making shit up.
HRs start at #1 every year, so when I googled it I got different years. (2021 & 2025)
Yes i support the 2025 HR17 for a balanced budget.

well, if H.J.Res.17 were adopted, it would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget.

Why do you support a balanced budget amendment which is specifically designed to allow Congress to not balance the budget?

 

[kyzr]

well, if H.J.Res.17 were adopted, it would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget.

Why do you support a balanced budget amendment which is specifically designed to allow Congress to not balance the budget?

This is what it says:
"This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year unless Congress authorizes the excess by a two-thirds roll call vote of each chamber. The prohibition excludes outlays for repayment of debt principal and receipts derived from borrowing.
The amendment also requires the President to submit an annual budget in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts."

 

[johnwk]

This is what it says:
"This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year unless Congress authorizes the excess by a two-thirds roll call vote of each chamber. The prohibition excludes outlays for repayment of debt principal and receipts derived from borrowing.
The amendment also requires the President to submit an annual budget in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts."

Did you miss the escape clause in Section 1 allowing Congress to vote to not balance the budget, which in turn makes it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget?

Did you miss Section 3 which further weakens the amendment to balance the budget by allowing estimates of outlays and receipts.

Did you miss, Section 4, which excludes calculating receipts derived from borrowing and repayment of debt principal, which certainly affects current financial circumstances?

Why do you support H.J.Res.17 which makes it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual federal budget, relies upon wishful thinking and projected figures, and excludes from its operation the calculation of receipts derived from borrowing and repayment of debt principal, which certainly affects the current financial circumstances of the United States Government?

Now, compare H.J.Res.17 with the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and tell me which one actually stops Congress from adding to the national debt year, after year.

 

[kyzr]

Did you miss the escape clause in Section 1 allowing Congress to vote to not balance the budget, which in turn makes it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget?

Did you miss Section 3 which further weakens the amendment to balance the budget by allowing estimates of outlays and receipts.

Did you miss, Section 4, which excludes calculating receipts derived from borrowing and repayment of debt principal, which certainly affects current financial circumstances?

Why do you support H.J.Res.17 which makes it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual federal budget, relies upon wishful thinking and projected figures, and excludes from its operation the calculation of receipts derived from borrowing and repayment of debt principal, which certainly affects the current financial circumstances of the United States Government?

Now, compare H.J.Res.17 with the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and tell me which one actually stops Congress from adding to the national debt year, after year.

SO all you need is for either the GOP or democrats to sponsor that Bill. Good luck.

 

[johnwk]

SO all you need is for either the GOP or democrats to sponsor that Bill. Good luck.

Your snarky deflection and non-answer is noted.

 

[dblack]

The most important thing to do at any Constitutional conventions is put the clamp down on rule by executive order.

 

[johnwk]

SO all you need is for either the GOP or democrats to sponsor that Bill. Good luck.

Do you still support H.J.Res.17, which makes it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual federal budget?

 

[PeterPilot]

The most important thing to do at any Constitutional conventions is put the clamp down on rule by executive order.

We know that Dick & Dubya with Neocon help greatly advanced the specious notion of The Unitary Executive, and that today The Donald is doing the same.

As for Constitutional Convention, I would favor it, but I know very well that if our "elected representatives" over generations have not obeyed the current version of the document, what on earth makes one think they would suddenly govern in accordance with a new version?