...The ConCon being voted on will only be allowed to consider to require the federal government to operate under a balanced budget. Nothing else. No Second Amendment revision, no change of the electoral college... absolutely nothing else. The Constitution only allows specific and PRESTATED listed amendments to be considered. Absolutely Nothing else. It is not a free for all “Let’s do the whole thing.”
That’s what was supposed to happen in 1787.
The Con-Con of 1787 was to ONLY consider provisions for an Army and Navy—nothing else!
Instead, THEY $h!tCanned our first Con and dumped a new Con on us that haunts us to this day!
>
...The ConCon being voted on will only be allowed to consider to require the federal government to operate under a balanced budget. Nothing else. No Second Amendment revision, no change of the electoral college... absolutely nothing else.
>
IOW, enforce and follow the Constitution as it exists today (A1S8).
The *ONLY* thing a BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment) would do is codify a reason for Congress to raise taxes, “Well, it’s the LAW, and we have to raise taxes to pay for...”.
Not unless they put some teeth into Constitutional violators (and I don’t mean ‘loss of position, while keeping every other perk’.
>
The Constitution only allows specific and PRESTATED listed amendments to be considered. Absolutely Nothing else. It is not a free for all “Let’s do the whole thing.”
>
Because we all *KNOW* the States are the bastions of protecting their Citizens and Rights vs. Fedzilla *rolls eyes*
The ConCon could turn into a ConAss - a constituent assembly which abrogates the old Constitution and drafts a totally new document. Kind of Federal level mob rule by acclamation and the sky’s the limit.
Not necessary. Public Law 95-435, Section 7, adopted in 1981, states that the Federal Government can not spend more than it takes in. It is still valid, so why do our elected officials in Congress not obey that law?
Which raises a number of other questions. Is there a penalty clause for violations of the law? Can each politician who voted for violation of the law be punished? Is a violation a misdemeanor or a felony? Who would prosecute the offenders?
We the people are expected to obey the law; why don't we hold our servants (who are busy morphing 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? A prime example is the second amendment in New Jersey and many other states; what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?