Posted on 11/18/2011 1:59:13 PM PST by NoLibZone
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Friday rejected a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution -- a setback to GOP leaders and conservative activists who claim the measure is necessary to end the federal government's spiraling deficit spending.
A total of 261 members voted for the measure --- 23 votes shy of the two-thirds majority required for passage -- while 165 members opposed it.
Most Republicans supported the measure; most Democrats voted no.
The vote on the amendment was agreed to by both parties over the summer as part of the agreement raising Washington's debt ceiling. Democratic leaders, however, are vehemently opposed to the idea, arguing that it would force the government into an economically destructive cycle of massive spending cuts.
Sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, the measure would have required three-fifths of both chambers of Congress to sign off on any future deficit spending. The amendment's requirements could have been waived in the event of a declaration of war.
"The American people are demanding action," Goodlatte said earlier this month. "They know that it is crucial we rein in the skyrocketing deficit spending that is discouraging investment and threatening to bankrupt our nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Does that surprise you?
It was a phony bill, allowing unlimited spending, never would have got through the senate or the Kenyan in chief.
Would that be the crier?
No. This was a bad bill.
Without a cap on spending, a balanced budget ammendment would mandate new taxes.
Yep, the Crybaby and a whole lot more.
Yes.
I had no expectation that the Senate would pass it or that Obimbi would sign it , but thought for sure it help promote conservatism.
No one would think it would pass and yet they still will not support it.
Ahh Ok thank you
Why WTH? There was no chance of getting two thirds given reasonably solid democrat opposition. It’s good to put the dems on the record, but it was a symbolic vote.
AP and now CNN have once again made fools of themselves in trying to shield the dems on the issue. I’m reminded of the Bush 43 era, when the word filibuster disappeared from the MSM lexicon. Harry Reid & Co. filibustered across the board, and the MSM reported “Congress rejects” or “Bush defeated” on one proposal after another that mustered a majority in the Senate but fell short of 60 votes. It was exceedingly rare for the MSM to report “Democrats block” or “Democrats filibuster.” Same thing now.
The GOP doesn't hold 2/3rd of the House or the Senate. There was no way this was going to fly. And the GOP leadership knew it, which is why they allowed the vote in the first place.
Go Here for the THE-TEA-PARTY-BUDGET File
They needed 2/3 for passage. The GOP doesn’t have enough votes by themselves. Therefore, this is no surprise. Democrats do not want a balanced budget.
If any Constitutional amendment passes the House and the Senate with a 2/3 vote in each, it goes directly to the states. The President has no role in amending the Constitution.
Actually, that’s not the reason. The vote was required as part of the law that also produced the Supercommittee.
A resolution to amend the Constitution doesn't go to the President for signature or veto; if it passes 2/3 of each house of Congress, it goes straight to the State legislatures.
You and Herman Cain(*) must've had the teacher on the constitution.
Presidents have no involvement in amendments. When they pass by 2/3rds of each house in Congress they go out to the states' for ratification.
* In one of his flubs, Cain said he'd sign a constitutional amendment.
This is a case where we're better off with no amendment than a bad amendment.
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.