DAY FOUR: November 24, 2013

Pursuant to notice given, Convention USA is called to order.

The Chair wishes to report as follows:

In an effort to invigorate the convention, I have designed some 1,186 delegate districts drawn along county lines throughout the United States from which to choose 6,163 delegates. That number represents one delegate for every 50,000 inhabitants, according to the 2010 decennial census.

I have further proposed to conduct a live convention in Saint Louis, Missouri convening on Monday, May 11, 2015. Delegates will be able to participate remotely via the Internet.

I have been diligently writing a book about the convention which describes this plan, and I sincerely hope it will be accepted by a publisher and become the catalyst for increased registration of delegates. As things stand now, Convention USA is drifting in calm waters.

The conditions in our nation, which have brought us together here, are not getting better. Our capacity to influence the body politic is negligible and will not be significant until we can attract a critical mass of concerned citizens to our cause 

These amendments to our published rules I have published on the Floor Motion Page of our web site so that delegates can vote on the changes. They will not be adopted unless and until approved by 26 states and a majority of those voting on the motion.

I have done this without prior consideration by the Rules Committee for the simple reason that Leonard Young, the parliamentary expert whom I appointed Chairman of Rules has resigned from the convention, and had never informed me of any delegates he may have asked to serve on the committee.

I appreciate that some delegates may take exception to this procedure, and I will publish whatever comments they may wish to make on this blog. It is my intention to leave the motion open on the floor for voting for another week.  

DAY THREE

It appearing that 34 States have answered the Quorum Call, Convention USA is now called to order

Delegates are invited to see and hear a performance of the National Anthem by three young members of Daves Highway.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

Delegate McCormick of Tennessee is recognized for the purpose offering an invocation.

Delegates are invited to see and hear a short Keynote Address by the Permanent Chairman.

KEYNOTE

Appointment of Officers:

Without objection, the following persons are appointed officers of the Convention:

Howard McCormick of Tennessee, Chairman Pro Tem
Leonard Young, of Missouri, Parliamentarian
Mike Carr, of Florida, Treasurer
Melissa Sharp, Missouri, Secretary

Without objection, the following persons are appointed Chairs of the respective Committees:

Dennis Murphy. of Nebraska, Finance
Benjamin Prather, of Florida, Internet
Leonard Young of Missouri, Rules
Joseph Elsener, of New Hampshire, Credentials
Anthony Hawks of Delaware, Style and Drafting

State Caucuses wishing to be recognized for the purpose of objecting to any of the foregoing appointments are invited to do so by posting comments to this blog before 9:30 PM Eastern Time.

DAY TWO: September 16, 2012

It appearing that a Quorum of 36 states is participating, and the date and time noticed for the convening of DAY TWO of Convention USA having arrived, the convention will come to order.   

The session will be conducted by means of posting comments on this blog. Delegates wishing to be recognized should post a comment specifying the reason they wish the floor. No motion will be published unless otherwise in order and accompanied by a second from another State.

The agenda will consist of:

1) Report on the Election of Permanent Chairman.

2) Report re: Appointment of Credentials Committee

2) Interim Report of the Rules Committee

3) Such other matters as may properly be brought to the floor.

THE FIVE TESTS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

I urge each delegate to consider every proposed constitutional amendment in light of five analytical tests:

1. The Suitability Test: Is the proposal suitable for inclusion in the Constitution?
This test is not about the substance or merits of a proposed constitutional amendment, but whether it raises the broader concern of James Madison in Federalist No. 49 that frequent constitutional changes would “deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest government would not possess the requisite stability.” 
For Madison, the amendment process was best reserved for “certain great and extraordinary occasions.” Determining when a “great and extraordinary occasion” has arisen requires us to ask (1) whether the problem will remain important to future generations rather than of immediate concern to the generation seeking its adoption; (2) whether the proposal seeks to achieve a particular policy or partisan result instead of (i) addressing a systemic or structural problem or (ii) expanding individual political or civil rights; and (3) whether the problem can, as a practical or legal matter, be addressed by statutory, executive, or other (non-constitutional) means. The paradigm example of a constitutional amendment that failed the suitability test is the 18th Amendment, which sought to impose alcohol prohibition on a nation caught up in the fervor of “progressive” reform. (Although to be fair, the advocates of alcohol prohibition at least recognized that such prohibition required a constitutional amendment, unlike the drug prohibitionists of today.) 

2. The Policy Test: Is the proposal good policy?

This test is about the proposal’s substance or merits. The suitability test will eliminate most proposed amendments, but assuming that the problem being addressed is serious enough to quality as a “great and extraordinary occasion”, is the proposal itself the best solution for actually solving (or at least diminishing) the problem? Answering this question requires us to ask searchingly what result we are trying to achieve and whether this result is consonant with the moral and political values that we want to see prevail. It is also a matter of judgment as to the costs of success, for we must never forget the law of unintended consequences should we actually achieve the result we are seeking. Again the 18th Amendment is a cautionary tale. Attempts to restrict the rights of our fellow citizens are almost always misguided, but when they lead so directly to massive crime and corruption, no benefit from such a proposed amendment can justify its ratification. 

3. The Enforcement Test: Is the proposal self-executing or otherwise enforceable?

This is the test that is most often overlooked or intentionally ignored. Some amendments are indeed self-executing, such as the 22nd (presidential term limits), or readily enforceable by the courts, such as the 24th (no poll taxes). But Members of Congress often propose or co-sponsor amendments for their symbolic value to buttress their political standing or insulate them from political pressure, knowing full well that the amendment cannot or will not be enforced if ever ratified. Here the paradigm is the so-called Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) that has been periodically approved by the House of Representatives and which in March 1995 failed by a single vote in the Senate. For decades I have been waiting for BBA supporters to explain how it would be enforced, but the only responses that they have ever given are (1) “fidelity to the Constitution” (i.e. Members of Congress will only pass balanced budgets because they swear an oath to the Constitution) and (2) super-majority voting to raise the debt ceiling. Leaving aside the various loopholes in the BBA for war, national security, and 3/5th majorities, fidelity to a constitutional oath is not self-executing. The more likely scenario is that lawmakers will claim to have honored their oaths by voting against spending which they personally oppose, yet fail to reach an overall consensus on legislation that actually balances the budget. As for using the debt ceiling to enforce fiscal discipline, we were reminded how vacuous this idea was last summer when Congress raised the debt ceiling for the 75th time since March 1962 (Congressional Research Service Report RL31967, April 5, 2011).

4. The Drafting Test: Has the proposal been properly drafted to achieve its policy goals?

This is perhaps the trickiest test to apply and meet because it not only has a practical component but an aesthetic one as well. A constitutional amendment must accomplish the intended goal in language that is as clear, simple, and direct as possible, but without opening the door to judicial reinterpretations that twist the original meaning so as to gut the amendment in whole or in part. We have still not recovered from the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases that effectively rewrote the Privileges or Immunities Clause to make it a dead letter in all but a few uncontroversial instances of federal or national citizenship. Drafters can seek to protect themselves from subsequent “judicial amendments” with detailed provisions, but this can result in wording akin to the prolixity of the tax code. Even then there is no guarantee that the original meaning will be honored. The framers of the P&I Clause could never list all of our “privileges or immunities”, any more than the framers of the 9th Amendment could list all of our unenumerated rights. There is also the problem of language changing or simply being forgotten over time. This concern can sometimes be addressed by adding specifically defined terms to an amendment, but if a court is determined to achieve a certain result, there is very little that can be done, at least in the short term. Just ask Chief Justice Roberts what a “tax” (or “direct tax”) is for constitutional purposes. 

5. The Political Test: Is the proposal politically viable?

Lastly, it is important to remember that proposed amendments must achieve deep and widespread political support to run the proposal and ratification gauntlet under Article V of the Constitution. The proposal must therefore have the potential for political viability, which in turn means that it must eventually gain bipartisan support. To be sure, many of our greatest constitutional provisions were not seen as politically viable when first proposed. The Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) required, well, a civil war, and the 19th Amendment required decades of political activism to achieve women’s suffrage. Still, most of us have limited time and energy, so it is best to focus on proposals that are serious and significant, yet do not favor any political party or which are so ideologically motivated as to ensure failure. One of my favorite proposals would change Tax Day from April 15 to the first Monday in November, but I am not going to make this the focus of my Article V efforts given the enormity of our fiscal problems and the need to make spending restraint by the federal government our first priority.

Andy Hawks

email: hawks@rcn.com

DAY TWO: August 18, 2012

A quorum of delegates from 34 states not having been found, DAY TWO was adjourned pendng the call of the Chair.


The Chairman has now issued a call for DAY TWO to be convened on Saturday, August 18, 2012 at 3PM Eastern time.


Delegates are requested to respond to the Quorum Call by logging on to www.conventionusa.org, opening the page entitled "Floor Motions," and voting YES on the Quorum Call. A "NO" vote is not necessary and cannot be changed.


Delegates who log in on Saturday, August 18, 2012 will be directed to the page where the session will be held.  


At the conclusion of the session, minutes thereof will be posted here for public inspection.

DAY ONE: February 27, 2012

It appearing that delegates have registered at the web site known as www.conventionusa.org representing the following thirty-four States:Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin;

And the Constitution of the United States providing in Article V that upon the petition of two thirds of the States, a convention for proposing amendments shall be called;

Now therefore, as acting Chairman of the Committee of Organization, I, Thomas E. Brennan, a registered voter in the State of Florida, do hereby call Convention USA to order, and I recognize Delegate Charles Irvin of Michigan for the purpose of posting the Inaugural Invocation.

OLD GLORY

A new delegate - the first from Vermont - sent along some thoughts on the American flag as a comment to the blog entitle THE CHAIR. Because I want to keep THE CHAIR open for convention business, I deleted Tim Price's comment.

Still, it's worth the reading, so I am publishing it here as a separate blog:

The Citizenship of the United States of America requires the adherence to a code of conduct. It is a self-imposed ethical behavior essential to the protection of a free society. To intentionally defile this code of behavior is a violation of the premise upon which the Constitution rests.

The First Amendment, protecting freedom of Speech, does not allow for intentional deception. Essential to a democratic system among free people is collective trust among all, as was required to be represented in the Flag of the United States of America, with the ratification of the Constitution, its new Bill of Rights, and the flag.


Our Flag
Created in 1789
After the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had produced the Constitution for ratification by the thirteen colonies, two years went by without enough states ratifying it to make it law. They had to add the first 10 amendments and also adopt a code of conduct which would be a voluntary oath for all citizens to uphold.
It was their belief that for a nation to be free, it had to have trust, and to have trust, people had to uphold honor.
Without honor there is no freedom. To the degree that there is honor, there is untrammeled freedom. Honorable behavior created the atmosphere in which freedom can thrive.
If any individual acts dishonorably, they are traitors to the dream of a free society and cannot be tolerated.

Colors:
White: The background banner representing purity and innocence, lack of guile.
Red: The stripes applied to the white banner: Cheer, Hardiness and Valor (worthiness)
Blue: Honor, Vigilance, Perseverance, & Justice
13 Stripes: 13 colonies
(7 red, 6 white)
A blue field with one white star for each state.
As in the Declaration of Independence: "We pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor".

Old Glory
by
Timothy K. Price

Let me tell you a story,
About our flag, old glory,
The stars and stripes of red, white, and blue;
And of its creation,
This symbol for our nation,
And what it mean to folks like me and you.

They took the purity of white,
The brightly shining light
All the colors in the spirit of our souls
For our banner of trust,
Our pledge of good intention,
For all who live beneath her to uphold.

They emblazoned her with red,
Stripes which clearly said
With a boisterous, cheering humor, “Have no fear”.
We are hardy souls of valor,
Worthy our intent,
To do good is the reason we are here.

We are many joined as one,
Honest folk, and fair,
For honor is the air that we breathe;
So to represent our nation,
Took a patch of blue sky
And placed on it a starry constellation.

With a star for every state
Each joining in its fate,
A union which no one will leave,
Finding happiness in freedom,
This flag is our dream
That none who live among us shall deceive.

Our flag is made from scraps,
For frugal is our way.
Simple living lets others simply live.
We will shame you for your riches,
Scorn your vanity,
If greed should get the better of your soul.

There’s salvation in compassion,
Poverty in greed,
So what we have we share with loving care.
We understand hard work,
Have no tolerance for cheats,
Politician in their office should beware.

When we pledge our allegiance,
We pledge a way of life,
To be true to the meaning of our flag.
We pledge a life of honor,
To be truthful and fair,
This is our way... here in the USA.

So this is my story,
About our flag, old glory,
The stars and strips of red, white, and blue.
And of its creation,
This symbol of our nation,
and what it means to folks like me and you

I believe that this issue must be raised to the highest level of awareness. It should be taught in schools, and upheld in the courts when deciding specific cases.

ReplyDelete

THE CHAIR

THIS BLOG WILL FUNCTION AS THE CHAIR OF CONVENTION USA.

DELEGATES WISHING TO BE RECOGNIZED ARE REQUESTED TO POST A COMMENT TO THIS BLOG, GIVING THEIR NAME, STATE AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ASK TO BE RECOGNIZED.

COMMENTS WHICH ARE UNTIMELY OR OUT OF ORDER WILL BE REMOVED.

TERM LIMITS

What follows is quoted directly from Wikipedia:

Term limits, or rotation in office, date back to the American Revolution, and prior to that to the democracies and republics of antiquity. The council of 500 in ancient Athens rotated its entire membership annually, as did the ephorate in ancient Sparta. The ancient Roman Republic featured a system of elected magistrates—tribunes of the plebs, aediles, quaestors, praetors, and consuls—who served a single term of one year, with reelection to the same magistracy forbidden for ten years. Many of the founders of the United States were educated in the classics, and quite familiar with rotation in office during antiquity. The debates of that day reveal a desire to study and profit from the object lessons offered by ancient democracy.

In 1783, rotation experiments were taking place at the state level. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at "four years in seven." Benjamin Franklin's influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin's earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania's plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.

On October 2, 1789, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of thirteen to examine forms of government for the impending union of the states. Among the proposals was that from the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson, urging a limitation of tenure, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress. The committee made recommendations, which as regards congressional term-limits were incorporated unchanged into the Articles of Confederation. The fifth Article stated that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years."

In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the federal constitution convention at Philadelphia omitted mandatory term-limits from the second national frame of government, i.e. the U.S. Constitution of 1787 to the present. Nonetheless, due largely to grass roots support for the principle of rotation, rapid turnover in Congress prevailed by extra-constitutional means. Also George Washington set the precedent for a two-term tradition that prevailed (with the exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four terms) until the 22nd Amendment of 1951.

However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787-88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic." Both Jefferson and George Mason advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done...."

The fact that "perpetuity in office" was not approached until the 20th century is due in part to the influence of rotation in office as a popular 19th century concept. "Ideas are, in truth, forces," and rotation in office enjoyed such normative support, especially at the local level, that it altered political reality.

James Fennimore Cooper, the novelist, described the common view that "contact with the affairs of state is one of the most corrupting of the influences to which men are exposed." An article in the Richmond Enquirer (1822) noted that the "long cherished" principle of rotation in office had been impressed on the republican mind "by a kind of intuitive impulse, unassailable to argument or authority."

Beginning about the 1830s, Jacksonian democracy introduced a less idealistic twist to the practice of limiting terms. Rotation in office came to mean taking turns in the distribution of political prizes. Rotation of nominations to the U.S. House of Representatives – the prizes – became a key element of payoffs to the party faithful. The leading lights in the local party machinery came to regard a nomination for the House as "salary" for political services rendered. A new code of political ethics evolved, based on the proposition that "turnabout is fair play." In short, rotation of nominations was intertwined with the spoils system.

In district nominating conventions local leaders could negotiate and enforce agreements to pass the nominations around among themselves. Abraham Lincoln was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1846 under such a bargain, and he returned home to Springfield after a single congressional term because, he wrote, "to enter myself as a competitor of another, or to authorize anyone so to enter me, is what my word and honor forbid."

During the Civil War, the Confederate States constitution limited its president to a single six-year term.

The practice of nomination rotation for the House of Representatives began to decline after the Civil War. It took a generation or so before the direct primary system, civil service reforms, and the ethic of professionalism worked to eliminate rotation in office as a common political practice. By the turn of the 20th century the era of incumbency was coming into full swing.

A total of 8 presidents served two full terms and declined a third and three presidents served one full term and refused a second. After World War II, however, an officeholder class had developed to the point that congressional tenure rivaled that of the U.S. Supreme Court, where tenure is for life. "Homesteading" in Congress, made possible by reelection rates that approached 100% by the end of the 20th century, brought about a popular insurgency known as the "term-limits movement."

Here is a simple amendment which would limit Congressional terms to eighteen years:

No person shall serve as a member of more than nine Congresses.

CONGRESSIONAL PAY

Back in 1982 a student at the University of Texas, researching the federal constitution for a term paper, stumbled onto a constitutional amendment proposed by the Congress in 1789, but never ratified by the states.

There was no deadline for ratification in the proposal, so Gregory Watson wrote his paper arguing that the amendment could still be ratified.

He got a “C.”

The professor thought it was just ridiculous to suppose that a proposal that was advanced by Congress 193 years before was still active.

Watson disagreed.

To prove his point, he started writing letters to the state legislatures. Within a year, Maine ratified the amendment, then Colorado. In 1992 Alabama became the 38th state to ratify  and the 27th Amendment was born.

The Professor still refused to change Watson’s grade.

Here’s what the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

In short, it prevents members of Congress from feathering their own nests; giving themselves a pay increase. They have to go back to the voters and get reelected before their paychecks are sweetened.

At least that is what everybody who worked to get the 27th amendment ratified believed.

But you gotta hand it to those Congressmen. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. They had plenty of will, so they came up with a clever way. They adopted COLA for themselves. COLA; that’s short for Cost Of Living Adjustment. Just like the unions.

Talk about clever. They included their COLA in a law they called The Ethics Reform Act of 1989. They could see the ratification of the 27th Amendment coming.

Apparently, they thought the ethical thing to do was to hurry up and give themselves an automatic annual raise before the 27th Amendment became the law of the land.

Oh, and by the way, the computation of their COLA included the provision that the annual adjustment could never be less than zero. Up every year, but never down.

To his credit, Gregory Watson didn’t give up. He and a few others brought an action in federal court to challenge the congressional COLA as a violation of the new 27th Amendment.

A federal District Court Judge in Colorado decided that the COLA, having been adopted before the amendment, was perfectly all right.

Watson and friends appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court said they couldn’t take the case, because the plaintiffs didn’t have ‘standing’ to complain. The United States Supreme Court agreed, and refused to hear the case, too.

It’s a sad story. The general public was, and still is, overwhelmingly in favor of limiting the power of the politicians to increase their own compensation.

But what about COLA? Should their salaries by increased to reflect the cost of living?

Most Americans like COLA. They figure inflation isn’t their fault. They see their buying power going down, their savings shrinking in value, and they want to make more money to keep up.

But the first premise doesn’t apply to members of Congress. Inflation is their fault. The devaluation of currency is their fault. The cheapening of the dollar is the direct consequence of wild and irresponsible spending by the government in Washington.

I believe that the compensation of members of Congress should be spelled out in the Constitution. In dollars and cents. No adjustments. No power to give themselves or their successors a raise.

Why? Very simply because the Constitution of the United States gives the Congress the exclusive power to coin money. The power to coin money carries with it the responsibility to assure that the money which is coined is a stable and reliable medium of exchange.

Inflation is the most regressive form of taxation. It takes from the rich and poor alike. It impunes every contract.  It invades every savings account.

How does it make sense to protect members of Congress from the inflation which they, themselves, have suffered to be visited upon their constituents?

If the compensation of members of Congress is fixed, their personal self interest will best be served by legislation which protects and even enhances the value of the dollar.

Fixing the compensation of members of Congress is an important first step in establishing a balanced budget and retiring the national debt.

And while we’re about it, we ought to close off another avenue of self aggrandizement. The House and Senate should be forbidden to pay extra money to the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of both houses and the chairmen or members of any committee.

It’s time to remind elected officials that they are public servants and not rulers. How about this:

All members of Congress shall receive a compensation of one thousand dollars for each day of attendance and no other compensation during or after their service. No law shall exempt members of Congress from any tax or obligation imposed by law.

NON PARTISAN SUPREME COURT

 As the American people begin to gear up for another Presidential election, the issue of controlling the Supreme Court once again lands on the front burner.

And why does it matter?

It matters because the Supreme Court of the United States has become just another political branch of government. Just another center of power where people go to get what they can’t get from the Congress, or from their state legislatures.

It used to be that folks argued about activist judges versus strict constructionists.

Conservative Justices were just supposed to interpret the laws and the Constitution. Stay out of the voting booth. Stay off the editorial pages. Leave the hot button issues to the representatives elected by the people.

Bush versus Gore put an end to that. If you’ve got a majority of the Court, you’re the seven hundred pound gorilla. You can do whatever you want to do.

Then again, maybe, just maybe, the stars are well aligned to talk about how to get back to basics. Lots of folks are ticked off with both parties. Tea and coffee parties have emerged because the folks don’t even want to be called Republicans and Democrats.

Independents are on the march. Here’s something they ought to be marching for: a non partisan Supreme Court.

Is that possible? Isn’t everyone something? Right, Left or whatever. But not just nothing.

Well, of course, nobody’s just nothing. Every judge has principles and preferences, experiences and opinions. It’s human nature.

But almost all of the 50 states have found a way to insulate their judiciary from the nitty gritty of partisan politics. Non partisan elections, Missouri Plan nomination, appointment advisory boards. There are lots of ways to soften the hard edges of party loyalty.

So here’s my thought for the day:

THE NON-PARTISAN COURT AMENDMENT
The Supreme Court shall consist of the current nine justices and their successors who shall be appointed for eighteen year terms by the President, without confirmation, from among a panel of five candidates nominated by the Chief Justices of the highest courts of the several states.

The Court shall interpret the Constitution and its amendments as understood by the people who ratified them and shall render no opinion enlarging or diminishing the powers of the government or the rights of the people.

I submit that this amendment would put an end to talk of court packing, to Presidents appointing justices to promote political agendas, to Senatorial confirmation circuses, and to tottering, dottering old men and women sitting on their Supreme Court seats, waiting for their party to win the White House.

If you’re with me on this, let me hear from you.

BALANCED BUDGET

There has been talk about amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget for years.

Ronald Reagan endorsed the idea. Back in his day, there were more than thirty states demanding a convention under Article V of the constitution for the purpose of framing such an amendment.

Congress got scared and passed the so called Graham-Rudman Act which was supposed to reign in deficit spending.

No so. The federal deficits have continued and the accumulated federal debt has now surpassed 14 trillion dollars.

In connection with the recent raising of the debt limit, there was a lot of discussion about a constitutional amendment that would require balanced budgets in the future.

A proposal was in fact introduced in the Congress. It required super majority votes to approve deficit budgets, except in time of war or other emergencies. There was no automatic enforcement provision written into the proposal, however. It is, therefore, only an aspirational statement that can simply be ignored by the Congress because nothing will happen if they do.

To be effective, a balanced budget amendment must have automatic and immediate consequences.

Here is language that would achieve the goal:

Any member of Congress who introduces, sponsors or votes in favor of a federal budget in which estimated expenditures exceed estimated revenues shall be ineligible to serve in the next succeeding Congress. This amendment shall be enforceable in federal courts on the petition of any state.

It’s simple. It’s automatic. It can be enforced by the courts.

And it does not prevent the government from incurring a deficit when required by war or other emergency. Members of Congress who sincerely believe that a deficit budget is necessary ought to be willing to step aside from the next Congress and let others address the problems.

After all, we ask many of our young men and women to sacrifice their lives for their country.  It ought not be too severe a consequence for patriotic politicians to give up their offices for a couple of years.

No doubt the idea will be debunked on the same ground as other balanced budget proposals: what is to stop the Congress from overestimating revenues or underestimating expenses?

Especially when a line item is simply described as “New taxes” or “Reduced Expenses” the fact that the totals are equal is obviously a façade.

The amendment addresses that problem by authorizing legal action by the states in federal courts. If the federal budget is a mere subterfuge, that fact can be proven in court.

Comments are invited.