I have been getting more excited about the resurgence of conversation, attention, advocacy, and just plain awareness of the United States Constitution over the past three years.  I have become more encouraged by the increasingly loud calls for greater Constitutional constraints on government through adherence to the Constitution ― and through new proposed amendments.  Is the American public truly awakening to the need for small limited government as envisioned by our Founders, and are we serious about putting more teeth into the constraints using the hard lessons taught us by the past 100 years of growing progressivism?

O how tempting to support and work to achieve:

●  A Balanced Budget Amendment with constraints on spending as a percent of GDP and requiring a Congressional
    supermajority to raise taxes.
●  A Term Limits Amendment to constrain all elected officials to two terms and prohibit lifetime careers in office.
●  A repeal of the Progressive Income Tax and an Amendment to implement a constrained FAIR or FLAT Tax.
●  An Equal Application of Law Amendment which would preclude Congress from passing any law that does not
    apply equally and the same to themselves as well as to the People.
●  A Recall Amendment which would allow the People to recall any Federal Elected official and hold new elections.
●  A Nullification Amendment to allow the States to nullify any Federal Law or Regulation which they find un-
    Constitutional or unacceptable.

...among other enticing proposals....  Ah, what a sweet redress of grievances such proposals seem to promise.  And they finally seem so close to realization ― after all, isn't Congress about to vote on a version of a Balanced Budget Amendment which would be sent to the States for ratification?!  Haven't a number of State legislatures already called for a Constitutional Convention?  Yes to both.  But the Balanced Budget Amendment stands a better chance than the proverbial snowball in hell with the socialist Democrats currently in Congress.  They are not about to do anything which might stand in the way of their unconstrained spending and destructive progressive agenda. And so also is the likelihood that two-thirds of the States' legislatures will actually call for a Constitutional Convention.

But what if it happened?  What if it really happened?  Would it turn out the way we want?  Could a Constitutional Convention be "controlled"?  Could it be constrained to address only what the People want?  Or could it become a runaway train?  Could it restructure the entire government ― turn our Republic into something else entirely?

There have been voices loudly proclaiming positions and predictions on both sides of these questions.  But the article below is probably the best and most thorough analysis that I've yet to read.  It's not short, but these are not simple or trivial questions.  Before we succumb to temptations should a Constitutional Convention become an actual possibility, let us soberly and critically think through the possible pitfalls.  I, for one, do not favor a "fool's rush".

Read: A Consitutional Convention Cannot Be Controlled


Bill Cochrane

Well, John Boehner is at it again.  Remember "way back" in July of this year, when Boehner led the House Republicans in retreat from the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, only to hand the Administration another trillion dollar blank check?  Well, to refresh your memory, Boener agreed to a 2-step plan whereby the House would hand Obama a blank check but before giving him the rest of the increase in Debt Ceiling, the House and Senate would be forced to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Everyone assumed ― or hoped ― that at least the Balanced Budget Amendment would be the one from the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan.  That is, we wanted a Balanced Budget Amendment that had real teeth and would impose limits on government spending.  The version in Cut, Cap, and Balance would cap spending at a percentage of GDP and require a supermajority in both houses of Congress to raise taxes.  There are flaws in that approach, but even with the potential loopholes available to manipulate the system, the Democrats ― especially the Senate Democrats ― are adamantly opposed to anything which would impede their ability to raise taxes and increase spending.

But Boehner continued to make noise about holding the Congress to the deal.  In mid-October he was talking strong about an upcoming vote on a Balanced Budget Amendmendment with a “real enforcement mechanism that can stop Washington’s job-crushing spending binge".  Ahh...  But as usual, Boehner seems unable to walk his talk, and is about to betray the conservative base of his Party yet again.

Continuing to find fierce opposition from the Congressional Democrats, Boehner has begun again to waffle on the matter.  In late October, Boehner began to speak of different versions of a Balanced Budget Amendment and to point out that the July Debt Ceiling agreement did not specify which version of a Balanced Budget Amendment would be subject to a vote.  And he began to work on shifting the positions of the freshmen House Republicans newly elected in the 2010 elections ― particularly the "Tea Party Caucus" ― to get them to "moderate" and to  accommodate "compromise" (which in Boehner's case always means surrender).  At this co-opting of the Republican freshmen, Bohner seems to have been remarkably successful.

Now, news comes out that Boehner will not "rule out" Republican support of a Balanced Budget Amendment which would permit unliimited Government spending and growth.  A Balanced Budget Amendment which simply requires the Federal Government to balance its books each year but neither caps spending as a percentage of GDP (and locks the definition of GDP so that it cannot be manipulated) nor requires a supermajority to raise taxes ― such a BBA is a trap.  It is a recipe for Bigger and BIGGER and BIGGER Government.  It is another capitulation to the Socialist Left.  It is a surrender, not a compromise.

Boehner is again about to reveal his true colors.  We will never put this country back on the right path until we change Republican Party "leadership".


Bill Cochrane

The American People are ready for a Balanced Budget Amendment and will soon drag their legislators in Washington to it in spite of themselves and their spending addiction.  But Europe!  And France?!  Come on!  Those folks have been self-professed socialists for so very long!  Imagine my shock on reading the following news!

Bill Cochrane
______________________

"The agreement to force Congress to have an up or down vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment is the cornerstone of re-establishing America as the world  leader in sound economic policy.  For decades, America’s small government model was internationally respected as being supportive of higher levels of economic growth.  But that image died after Republicans gained domination of the Presidency, Senate, and the House in 2002 and ramped up outlays in  every direction – increasing spending by 90% and the national debt by 150% in just nine years.

This irresponsible action gave cover for politicians around the world to join in on the spending bash.  But with the American public now favoring a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution by 74% according to the most recent CNN poll; Congress and the President will be forced to either approve an Amendment, or suffer the over-whelming wrath of voters in the next election.  Following America’s re-born economic leadership; President Sarkozy of France just proclaimed he will run for re-election on a platform in support of a French Balance Budget   Amendment.

More....