Here’s an excerpt from the article giving an example of what he means:
“...
Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending” (p 73 -74)
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP. Do you see?
The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits – already set forth in the Constitution – on its spending.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?
But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:
“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”
Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.
Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections 6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt. 5”
Having an amendment saying that “Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget...” does not automatically and permanently legalize any currently unconstitutional spending. Such an amendment still leaves unanswered whether that spending is constitutional or not.
If I am wrong and, after full legal analysis, we conclude that it does legalize such things, then we can add language to this amendment to resolve that.
We should unite on this issue and have an Article V convention of states. It is really the best way because it allows us to bypass interference by the lobbyist-funded legislators in DC.
The states have already lost much of their power, and this tool was created in the Constitution specifically to restore this power.
The libs will try to interfere but even if they get something passed we could still override it with 13 states refusing to ratify that amendment. We can get 13 states to refute a bad amendment.
Also, those who say, “it won’t do any good because the courts or the govt won’t enforce it” are basically saying it is too late to do anything and we might as well give up on all issues.