Posted on 05/06/2016 11:45:52 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Free Government is that happy condition wherein government respects and protects the unalienable, Natural Rights of the nation, and makes no law without its consent. Under this simple guidance, government is twice limited: by its end, which any of us would have a right to pursue were there no government at all, and by its means, which require our consent.
Yes, the presidential campaign season is entertaining. But if the practical extent of our God-given freedom depends on the election of either Bernie, The Beast or Donald Trump, it follows that actual free government is as real and enduring as a passing shadow.
While the outcome of what we advocate, an Article V state convention, cannot be guaranteed, you and I are not alone in the realization that our nation is in extremis, that elections cannot possibly restore free government.
Twenty-nine of the necessary thirty-four states have applied to congress for a balanced budget amendment; I expect the remaining five states will be found soon. While we can disagree on the wisdom of incorporating budgetary rules in our constitution, what is far more important is that a moribund state convention amending process will be awoken for the first time. Perhaps this convention will be as exciting as a gathering of accountants. Perhaps it will adjourn without recommending an amendment at all.
However, the ice-jam of reluctance to convene will be broken. The nation will have experienced a state amendments convention and survived!
Despite the horrid corruption of our previously free government, our republican form (congress, executive, judiciary) remains; within republican forms, change is best done incrementally, gradually, in small steps to allow societal adjustment. Keep them coming, but allow each to sink in.
Perhaps a convention of the states to address spending is a necessary first step toward continuing reform which just might culminate in the restoration of free government.
Politicians famously see the light when they feel the heat. I encourage readers in WA, MT, ID, WY, AZ, MN, WI, KY, VA, SC, and ME to contact their state legislators in support of the balanced budget amendment.
As for the Article V Convention of States project to limit the government’s power and jurisdiction to eventually restore free government, please Sign the COS Petition.
A balanced budget is not the answer.
A bloated budget that’s balanced is no answer.
I would much prefer a small budget with some deficit than a huge balanced budget.
The emphasis should be on making the budget and hence the government smaller and less intrusive in our lives.
While I appreciate the concept, I do not think that a balanced budget amendment should be anywhere near the top of the agenda...
First would be a constitutional ban on shackling any future congress to any budgetary allocation NOT actually paid for and funded. IE: End ALL federal government employee benefits and retirements; give them a paycheck, show them where a financial planner is, and let them make those decisions.
End the embezzlement and the rest of the finances will slowly return to normal. If they personally understand that there’s no free money wandering around, they’ll be far less likely to steal it for someone else.
A balanced budget amendment is not needed.
There is a law on the books that states that the Federal government cannot spend more than it takes in. This law was adopted in 1981, Public Law 95-435, Section 7. It’s still valid, so why do our elected officials in Congress not obey that law?
That raises a number of other questions. Is there a penalty clause for violations of the law? Can every politician who voted in favor of violating the law be punished? Is a violation a misdemeanor or a felony? Who would be in charge of prosecuting the offenders?
We the people are expected to obey the law; why won’t we hold our servants (who have, regrettably, morphed into masters) to the same standard?
Finally, since the law is already being ignored, what makes us think that an amendment would not also be ignored? The Second Amendment being a prime example in New Jersey; what part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?
“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.”
~Thomas Jefferson
Fiscal Responsibility Amendmentamendment from
Amendment Booklet.pdfon Art in Idaho's list:
Fiscal Responsibility Amendment
Section I
The power of Congress to regulate the value of money is hereby rescinded; the unit of money of the United States is the Dollar.
Section II
The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand.
Section III
To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI).
Section IV
The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available. Any five states may commission a third party audit to confirm this report at their own expense.
Section V
The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Section VI
Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold, money, or real estate to be confiscated from a citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall:
a. be removed from office (and fired, if an employee),
b. forfeit all pension and retirement benefits,
c. pay all legal costs, and
d. restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy.
Section VII
The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void.
Section VIII
The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation and theft.
If there's a penalty in the amendment that gives it teeth, capping the debt to a specific amount (like 200% gold physically present in the treasury), and declaring that the assumption of any further debt is not public, but rather personally liable by those voting for it… well then, there you have something that has teeth.
All it takes to balance a budget is to approve enough borrowing to offset the spending.
Congress could pass a "balanced budget" just as easy as they can pass a continuing resolution. In fact, all they would have to do is apply the name to a continuing resolution.
And if you could pass an amendment (which you can't) that said government can't borrow and can only spend what it receives in Taxes then the effect of that would likely be
A great idea, but people like their wars and welfare checks too much for this to have a chance.
States that have balanced budget amendments see their budgets go out of control even faster that before they had it.
This merely provides cover for raising taxes. You are B.S.d into somehow believing that this measure would reduce spending, which is the real problem.
It’s like that BRAC commission providing cover for politicians who have bases removed from their state. They can always claim publicly that they fight the move but ultimately, it’s BRAC’s call.
Here, when the proposed budget comes up large and they can’t agree on what to reduce, increased taxes kick in “automatically”. Keep in mind that when politicians talk of reducing spending, they’ve only ever reduced a proposed, and increased budget over the prior year. Even after “reduction” it’s still larger than the year before.
So the politicians can shrug their shoulders and claim they did not raise taxes, the balanced budget amendment did.
Also keep in mind it’s harder to overcome an amendment (2/3 vote) than it is a budget (50% vote).
So if you want to see spending go out of control even faster than before, support a balanced budget amendment.
This is just more political hogwash. Nothing beneficial will happen unless and until government is downsized. Fewer government employees, fewer government rules and regulations, fewer departments and fewer handouts.
And should this happen how do think people who no longer receive ‘their’ free money will react? Peacefully or otherwise?
And do you really think that those in office will vote to downsize ‘their’ power , perks and pleasure? Wake-up Americans, the road to disaster has been underway for years.
The results of the next election will, in my opinion, answer those questions.
I think the amendment in post 6 puts appropriate limitations no borrowing.
(See Section V.)
Agreed, my friend.
Bingo.
From a related thread …
Once again, it’s time for "Federal Government Annual Budget 101,” the constitutionally limited power federal government's annual budget as the Founding States had likely intended for the budget to be understood.
Note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. This is evidenced by the excerpt below.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, based on the Court’s statement above, here is a rough estimate of how much taxpayers should be paying Congress annually to perform its Section 8-limited power duties.
Given that the plurality of clauses in Section 8 deal with defense, and given that the Department of Defense budget for 2015 was $500+ billion, I will generously round up the $500+ billion figure to $1 trillion (but probably much less) as the annual price tag of the federal government to the taxpayers.
In other words, the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx Noise, should not be reporting multi-trillion dollar annual federal budgets without mentioning the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes in budget discussions.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, including putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes.
Also consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
A Balanced Budget Amendment is not the answer, for one the Constitution is not Obeyed Now, so adding more things to be ignored won’t help. It would be better to just USE THE ONE WE HAVE!!
Article 1, section 8
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Article 1, section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Until the 3rd Central Bank is abolished, Nothing will ever get fixed. Until we Eliminate “Credit Money” and go back to a Gold/Silver Standard, simple Mathematics tells us it can ONLY GET WORSE until the Final Collapse.
The problem here is that the government (via the legislature & courts) have effectively redefined coining money to printing money, as delegated to the federal reserve.
A Balanced Budget Amendment is not the answer, for one the Constitution is not Obeyed Now, so adding more things to be ignored won’t help. It would be better to just USE THE ONE WE HAVE!!
Actually, I think a balanced budget amendment could solve the problem; take a look at post 6; it addresses the problem by (a) defining the dollar as a unit of sufficiently pure gold, and (b) restricting the congress's ability to accumulate debt to 110% of the gold physically in the treasury. [It also looks at the possibility of confiscation and preemptively makes government agents personally liable, not only for restitution but also terminating their office/employment.]
if all states were required to have balanced budgets,,
and the federal gangstamint wa snot allowed to raise any funds period, the states could then control the federal gov.
take the money power from the fed gangsta
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.