Proposed constitutional amendment on the natonal debt.
- Thread starter Tidewater
- Start date
So Congress passes a budget, then what? The legislatures of each State vote on it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. If the budget is balanced, states would have no concern.
If Congress passes budget that result in increasing the national debt, they would have to go to the state legislatures for permission to increase the national debt. Absent that permission (if the majority of the state legislatures vote no, or don't vote at all), the Federal government could not spend more than they take in.
John Taylor is the greatest constitutional thinker you've never heard of. Jefferson, well, you've heard of Jefferson.Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor said:
I think it's a good idea. I might consider some form of an exception for instances when Congress formally/officially declares war.
I would also consider involving the States in other important decisions too. For example, the selection of Supreme Court justices could be turned over to a caucus of State Supreme Court Chief Justices. The Supreme Court needs to be biased toward interpretations that favor the States, not the federal government.
I would also consider involving the States in other important decisions too. For example, the selection of Supreme Court justices could be turned over to a caucus of State Supreme Court Chief Justices. The Supreme Court needs to be biased toward interpretations that favor the States, not the federal government.
i like it. the federal gov overstepped its boundaries long ago in regard to states rights. i think it's a good idea to give some of that power back.
I would guess that the intent here (and Jefferson's intent in 1798) was to take out of the hands of Congress the decision on increasing the national debt.
Being the borrower and the spender is too much power for mere mortals (as shown by subsequent history).
This amendment has some intriguing improvements over a straight Balanced Budget Amendment. Most BBAs have some loophole (in case of war, or balanced with taxes within a certain percentage of GDP). This allows for emergencies like war, it just takes the borrowing decision out of the hands of the spenders. I would be happy with any other set of individuals making the borrowing decision: State conventions, anybody but Federal legislators.
This video shows the topic in a humorous light.
Last edited:
I like the idea but feel this would be unworkable. And isn't this really saying, ok, spend what you want but we wont let you pay for it.:conf2:
So the plan is to convince two-thirds of Congress members to just give away a power of Congress.
The lobbying will go something like this. "Mr. Congressman, since you're not responsible enough to handle debt you should vote to let someone else do it who is more responsible than you are."
And he'll say, "By golly, you're RIGHT!"
What a darling little fantasy this is.
The lobbying will go something like this. "Mr. Congressman, since you're not responsible enough to handle debt you should vote to let someone else do it who is more responsible than you are."
And he'll say, "By golly, you're RIGHT!"
What a darling little fantasy this is.
I think it's a good idea and am sure the details could be worked out by a government intent on doing what is best for the country. The trouble is we have a rogue government now that doesn't even follow existing Constitutional law or care about much but their own wealth and power.
The U.S. Constitution requires Congress pass an annual budget and they have not done so for the last four years. The current administration seems to think it is above the law. They have ignored or rewritten laws to suit their agenda and no one is challenging them on that. The main stream media is in bed with that liberal agenda which leaves much of the public ignorant on the issues. So, basically we are at their mercy. They can spend and tax at will and corruption goes unchecked.
The U.S. Constitution requires Congress pass an annual budget and they have not done so for the last four years. The current administration seems to think it is above the law. They have ignored or rewritten laws to suit their agenda and no one is challenging them on that. The main stream media is in bed with that liberal agenda which leaves much of the public ignorant on the issues. So, basically we are at their mercy. They can spend and tax at will and corruption goes unchecked.
Nate, that is why the sponsors of the measure have taken the approach of an Article V Convention, bypassing Congress.
Bills calling for an Article V Convention have passed North Dakota and Louisiana, and have sponsors in dozens of other states. In Alabama and Virginia, the bill still lacks a sponsor in the state legislature.
I'm not thrilled about the idea of the Alabama legislature helping to set the federal budget. I do not support this proposed amendment.
The state legislatures would not "set the Federal budget" under this amendment. They were have to approve increasing the debt limit. As long as the Federal budget was balanced, the state legislatures would have no say in the matter.
And this amendment could be rewritten to make the state governors be the people to approve an increase in the Federal debt limit. Or a set of people elected to approve increases in the Federal debt limit. The point is to take the decision on increasing the debt limit out of the hands of the people doing the spending.
I understand the concerns about the merits of the people in state legislatures. The status quo, however, does not have much to commend it.
Libs will hate it
Conservatives will love it......
31 States have Republican Governors -- not sure how many states have a conservative legislature....but I'm sure it's at least that amount.
That's why if Conservatives were smart, they'd appeal to the populations of the Red States to NEVER have a liberal Senator again -- there is no reason the Republicans should ever NOT have control of the Senate. I think if the Red States push out the lib Senators -- life would improve dramatically. I know Mary Landrieu is likely gone in 2 years.
libs hate the concept of "State's Rights" -- even though that was what the Founding Fathers wanted.....
Conservatives will love it......
31 States have Republican Governors -- not sure how many states have a conservative legislature....but I'm sure it's at least that amount.
That's why if Conservatives were smart, they'd appeal to the populations of the Red States to NEVER have a liberal Senator again -- there is no reason the Republicans should ever NOT have control of the Senate. I think if the Red States push out the lib Senators -- life would improve dramatically. I know Mary Landrieu is likely gone in 2 years.
libs hate the concept of "State's Rights" -- even though that was what the Founding Fathers wanted.....
It's off topic, but the Democrats in the 2000 election recount suddenly discovered "states rights" when the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Gore had won Florida and the Republicans embraced Federal supremacy when the SCOTUS ruled that Bush had won.
Didn't the U.S. Supreme Court simply apply state law appropriately, which the Florida State Supreme Court couldn't manage to do with its own State laws? Seems like the rule of State law came out on top, which is what this conservative likes.
Yes, but, as is usual, it's more complicated. I am not a member of the bar in Florida, but I would bet that the Florida state constitution makes the Florida Supreme Court the final decider of Florida state law. The Federal government (in the form of the SCOTUS) stepped in and said that their (SCOTUS') interpretation of Florida state law trumped the Florida Supreme Court's ruling (which would have awarded the state's Electors to Gore).
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
