Posted on 07/28/2011 6:10:42 AM PDT by Veritas_et_libertas
When you write a constitutional amendment, the devil is in the details.
“Cut, Cap, and Balance” prescribed some details for a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). But those details were poorly thought-out, and might have given America a devil of a problem.
Fortunately, Senate liberals—too short-term greedy to recognize their own long-term political interest—defeated Cut, Cap, and Balance. As a result, we dodged a bullet we had unwittingly fired at ourselves.
Let me make it clear that I believe in balanced budgets, and would like to see a balanced budget requirement in the U.S. Constitution. And I’ve proved my bona fides: For many years I conspicuously led citizen efforts in Montana to limit taxes and spending—and did so at enormous personal and professional cost. However, years ago, when researching the subject of “TELs” (tax and expenditure limitations), I learned that some measures can do more harm than good. In other words, they can backfire. Whether a limitation works as intended or backfires depends largely on how you write it.
The authors of the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill were well intentioned, but in the BBA part of the bill, they made some potential mistakes.
First: The bill required that before the debt limit could be increased, Congress must propose a BBA meeting several requirements. But in doing so, the authors of the bill unwittingly invited the courts to strike down any BBA so proposed.
ctnd...
(Excerpt) Read more at constitution.i2i.org ...
There is an old rule of thumb that if a fighter aircraft looks good, it is. I have questions about the F-35.
Oops! Sorry for posting on the wrong thread.
I thought it appropriate, if one assumes you are a Zen Master.
There’s an awful lotta “coulda, maybe, possibly” kinds of objections, along with a single study against a supermajority. I still remain supportive of a BBA.
A Constitutional Amendment, once ratified and adopted, cannot by definition later be found ‘unconstitutional’ and thrown out by any court.
He does as well. He is merely saying that there were some potential problems with the one that was proposed and that those problems could easily be avoided.
See here: http://constitution.i2i.org/2011/07/10/reining-in-congress-an-enforceable-balanced-budget-amendment/
So, then, do the House Repubs need to re-write a bill including a BBA with a keener eye toward the constitution, or is the very idea of a BBA something that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny?
“Zen master”—that cracked me up.
I was thinking along the same lines. “The dude’s got a workable Universal Theory going there...”
lol
We need to elect statemen with brains, intellect, and strong moral character, instead of Hollowood look alikes.
In the sense that Congress proposes taxes that will "pay" for the spending. And before the taxes ever get a chance to come in, the money is borrowed. Et voila, a "balanced budget"!
The Balanced Budget Amendment is nothing more than a veil we are telling polluticians we want placed over our own eyes.
It's the spending, stupid.
Yeah, that was my next question. How in the heck do these, supporters/defenders of the constitution submit a bill calling for a constitutional amendment that cannot possibly rise to the challenge? Incompetence, or what?
I’m no constitutional scholar, neither are many of our elected leaders, I am sure...I would never dare to think I could write such a bill (or any bill, for that matter) without fully examining the context, the impact, the efficacy. Arrogance, or what?
In dealing with a disingenuous opponent, I am going to make sure I’ve dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s. I am not going to give them any more information than they already possess by shooting myself in the foot (especially when I know my opponent will have all the help in the world (the MSM) to make me look foolish in front of those I am trying to persuade. Foolishness, or what?
“information” should be “ammunition” (Not even close. Sheeesh! See why I would never dare write such a bill!)
Indeed. It's a blank check for the government to do anything whatsoever up to that amount.
Read the article. The cap gets increased once the House and Senate pass the constitutional amendment, but BEFORE the states ratify it. So the Dems get their debt increase, and THEN file suit to declare the BBA invalid because of how it was passed. The states cannot vote to ratify an amendment that was not properly passed, so it dies.
The court declaring it invalid does NOT mean that the old debt limit gets re-imposed. So the Dems get to play Lucy to our Charlie Brown.
I disagree with the author about the flaw being a mistake, though. I think it was deliberately put in. Neither the Dems nor the GOP establishment really wants a cap.
This thing was too complicated -- would provide livelihoods for too many lawyers.
We don’t need a BBA. All we need to do is put me in charge for a couple of years. ;)
No kidding! I was reading it as a metaphor! Lol!
*grasshopper is really embarrassed*
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.