But, it's always war
The Ohio legislature is considering a joint resolution "[a]pplying to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments." Should this resolution pass both state houses, only one more state is required before a convention must be called.
The stated reason for the Ohio resolution in support of a convention: "First, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt only balanced budgets for all federal programs and agencies, except in times of war." But it's always war. At least is has been for the past seven years.
The so-called balanced budget amendment has no teeth to take on its stated reason, but it will open the Constitution -- and what is left of Liberty -- to all sorts of abuses and usurpations. Keep in mind that the last convention struck the first blow against Liberty, so one can only imagine where the next one will go.
Note: Even the Soviet Union had constitutions.
Comments (13)
Mick
The convening order seams to limit the purpose of the convention to considering ammendments to implement to included provisions. This appears to be within the scope of the text:
"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".
This is a nice mechanism where the states can propose amendments that strip powers away from Congress without having to consult them. It does not appear, at least from my current glance, that a convention would necesarily have to consider all amendments from the floor (the rules for the convention would have to come from the states, after all).
Published: December 11, 2008 9:09 PM
Mick
My bad, it is totally an open convention. Epic close reading fail...
Published: December 11, 2008 9:11 PM
Except in war, AND...
And the best thing is that with these moronic clauses all the government has to do if there isn't a war is to start one.
Think of how perfect the War on Terror is for this purpose. They can bypass lots of policies and limitations by saying we are at war.
Published: December 11, 2008 9:23 PM
Bruce Koerber
Balancing the budget is so much easier than it is made out to be!
All service of elected officials should be made voluntary; no pay for rendering these services to the community whether at the local, State, or Federal level.
Does anyone know how much would be saved if all pay and all fringe benefits of all elected officials at all levels of government were reduced to zero?
Or they could accept the nominal $1 that is trumpeted as praiseworthy for the top executives of the three big U.S. auto makers.
Only people who are truly sincere would be willing to serve and only people who have been exemplary in their service would receive votes.
As you can see political parties will disappear since the individuals voted for are chosen because they are meritorious not because of any affiliation. Perhaps one hundred persons distinguished for their wisdom and knowledge and sincerity will receive votes. Ultimately one will be chosen in the process.
Since it is relatively expensive to travel there will be a minimal number of meetings and so proposals will be simple since time will be very valuable indeed. This also means that spending of all kinds will be very limited since the criteria used for siphoning through any and all proposals will be those laid down in the Constitution. If it does not meet the requirements of the Constitution it will not take up even one second of the precious time of these elected representatives.
Within one election cycle the budget would be balanced and freedom and liberty would return like a torrent. The American nation will quickly find its destined prosperity.
Published: December 11, 2008 9:28 PM
Pierre
Bruce: This is idealistic to say the least. Politicians are interested in power, not profit. Self-interest is not always monetary, in fact I think that it rarely is.
Published: December 11, 2008 10:45 PM
YerMawm
Bruce,
Although the founders never intended full-time politicians, it's not their salaries that is the problem. The problem is that they have taxpayer dollars, and the printing press at their disposal. Strip them of these two things, and they shall wield far less influence.
Published: December 11, 2008 10:45 PM
Jamison
Bruce,
Among other things, you neglect to take into account bribes as a major source of income for government officials. Maybe not so much in the US but for the rest of the world it is. I could imagine with no salary for lower level officials they would be more inclined to receive bribes.
Probably a better idea to curb expenditures is to reduce the size of government, eliminate whole departments, and turn over these functions to the private sector.
Jamison
Published: December 11, 2008 10:46 PM
David Bratton
Any such convention would be open to anything the delegates wanted to do. That's why it has never and will never happen. If there is ever a truly large popular push for a balanced budget, the Congress will pass it the old fashioned way so they can control the process.
Louis XVI called the Estates General because he just wanted a little money.
Published: December 11, 2008 10:46 PM
Rob Vann
Of note, War Powers Resolution notwithstanding, we're not actually at war currently. It also seems unlikely that Congress would authorize War Powers Resolution merely to escape balanced budget initiatives.
Published: December 12, 2008 1:28 AM
Bruce Koerber
Of course none of us are opposed to idealism!
Without idealism would someone like Ron Paul be in the Congress?
Without idealism would the concept of a Constitutional Republic have ever been devised?
There is no doubt that eliminating the counterfeiting operation is the quickest and most direct means to a quick restraint on politicians. But there are other arguments out there that expose the other fallacies such as the Constitutional amendments to 'balance the budget' (except in times of war!).
Before we make an amendment to the Constitution let's exhaust other possibilities. Let's make the willingness and ability to be of service to others and to our nation (which more properly should be regarded as one of the classical liberalism societies in a classical liberalism civilization) the criterion for our representatives.
Guilty as accused! I am idealistic!
A classical liberalism civilization is something the world has never known so the lack of bribery and other seemingly idealistic principles of behavior are distant in our minds and hearts at best.
Show me a more compatible design for human civilization and I am all ears. The equilibrium forces that underlie human evolution is moving us towards a classical liberalism civilization as far as I can tell. Call me idealistic! Thank you for the compliment!
Published: December 12, 2008 7:52 AM
Pierre
I'm sorry, I meant unrealistic, and you never addressed the underlying criticism. The problem is that the Constitution was supposed to prove that limited government is possible. It failed to do so, thus leaving market anarchism as the only (humane) option.
Published: December 12, 2008 9:12 AM
Bruce Koerber
Dear Pierre,
Subjectivism is realistic and classical liberalism is the fruit of subjectivism. An unhampered market is the reality of classical liberalism and the U.S. Constitution, as it changes through the proper mechanisms, can be a useful facilitator. This probably addresses your criticism.
With warm regards,
Bruce
Published: December 12, 2008 10:19 AM
Anonymess
Government officials are dying to have a constitutional convention. They have already prepared and published their plan of action if they get the opportunity (see New States Constitution). They don't care what pretense is used to open the convention, they will derail the propaganda purpose right away.
A constitutional convention will rapidly spin into an agenda of authoritarian rule. It will be attended and controlled by confirmed statists whose goal is the erase all vestiges of liberty and install an Orwellian oligarchy. We are fooling ourselves if we think that any good will come of it no matter what defects we see in our current constitution.
A constitutional convention will very likely result in a stark, binary choice of paths: bloodshed or slavery. And while the path of slavery is straightforward and will appeal to many, the path of rebellion and bloodshed is shrouded in mystery. It could be that slavery is still imposed at gunpoint, or that freedom prevails knee-deep in blood.
How is that for happy thoughts?
Published: December 12, 2008 12:42 PM