I am a Conservative mostly Republican and I am a Believer in God, the Constitution and a limited Government that does not impose loony left-wing socialistic policies on the People. I am a Tea Partying, Rally attending Right Wing Right to Life Citizen of the United States! I am not a Racist, bigoted, or part of an angry mob! I know when my rights are being trampled and do not take it well. I am known to write angry letters to our Representatives and call the white house when I get Riled! I have the phone number of every Representative from Tennessee in my Cell phone.
Amendments to the Constitution?
Amendments to the Constitution?
Many conservatives and conservative groups are calling for Amendments to the Constitution. These Amendments are in respect to Term Limits and to balancing our Federal Budget.
My quick response is VOTE and What Budget!
I have thought about these amendments for a while now. I am amazed that anyone thinks amending the constitution will resolve these problems.
Amendment to install term limits on Congress. I understand the issue of politicians who are in office for their whole lives. Ted Kennedy, was first elected to the Senate in November 1962, he was re-elected nine times and served for 47 years until his death. Charlie Rangel has served since 1971; that is 39 years! John Murtha was in since 1974 or 35 years. Just these 3 examples, would or should be enough to say YES to amending the constitution. But America is a Republic with free elections, and the people of
Is bad taste in elected officials, really a reason to support an amendment to get them out. On the other side of the coin are precious representatives like Michele Bachman and I am sure there might be others, would we amend the Great Constitution to limit her terms? I sure wouldn’t.
I have a problem with chocolate, I cannot stop eating it until it is gone, I love it, but if you don’t, would you amend the law to keep me from having it? Yes that is silly and irreverent, however so is amending the constitution, because you don’t like the way people vote! Wouldn’t it be wiser to teach people about issues and make sure that like-minded citizens are registered and go vote during elections. Wouldn’t this be a better way to ensure that qualified candidates make their way to Washington
We, as Americans, say we love our freedom, but take very little time to make sure we keep it. It is our duty to find, support and vote for qualified candidates. Screaming at the TV at the ones we disdain is not fighting for Freedom it is a warning that you need to be more involved in our system.
Wouldn’t instead of amending our constitution, it be better to work on State legislation to get recall for bringing back and firing representatives that do not represent. This is where we send them to office, let us hold them accountable to represent us or be fired on the state level; by the people, and let’s not amend our constitution!
It is not easy to amend the constitution and many amendments never get ratified. In order to amend our constitution it takes one of these processes:
The Amendment Process (http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html)
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
The reason for the 7-year limit is that most amendments are never ratified by the number of states necessary. There are 6 failed amendments, one of which was only ratified by 10 states the last in 1796.
Then there are the proposed amendments, from 1989 through 1999 there were 856 amendments proposed (For more on this http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html)
these are from the 109th Congress (2005-2006)
- To ensure reproductive rights of women (abortion)
- To force the Congress and President to agree to a balanced budget, with overspending allowed only in the case of a three-fifths vote of Congress
- To ensure that all children who are citizens have a right to a "free and adequate education" (straight from the U.N.)
- To specifically permit prayer at school meetings and ceremonies
- To allow non-natural born citizens to become President if they have been a citizen for 20 years (Well BHO already did this and there was no amendment, get it?)
- To specifically allow Congress to regulate the amount of personal funds a candidate to public office can expend in a campaign
- To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens (DUH this is in the constitution already)
- To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution
- To provide for continuity of government in case of a catastrophic event (another congress wanted to “appoint” other members bypassing the peoples right to suffrage)
- The "Every Vote Counts" Amendment - providing for direct election of the President and Vice President, abolishing the Electoral College
- To clarify eminent domain, specifically that no takings can be transferred to a private person except for transportation projects
- Providing a right to work, for equal pay for equal work, the right to organize, and the right to favorable work conditions (Written by the SEIU???)
- To allow the President to reduce any Congressional appropriation, or to disapprove of same (akin to a line-item veto) (only when my guy is in there, lol)
Amending the constitution can be a dangerous undertaking, much damage can be done especially with a progressive majority like we have now. What if that majority was increased by stealing elections? Can’t happen you say, just look at
Another frequently mentioned amendment is Balancing our budget, well this would be a dream come true, but how would you do this? One way would be to raise everyone’s taxes by 50% or more. I don’t think I would like that. Then I see formulas out there, who knows what this one means? Would your Amendment say that you must use this formula? (I seriously found this formula by googling balanced budget)
The simplest model of income determination is (really this is the simplest???)
Y = C + I + G
C= a+ c*(Y-T), with I, G and T as constant.
SO, Y = a+ c*Y- C*T+I+G
or, (1-c)*Y = I + G - c*T,
or, Y= (I+G-c*T)/ (1-c)
Now consider G and T to increase by equal amounts of DB. Thus the equation shows that there will be an increase in Y by DY with I remaining constant.
Therefore, DY = (DB - cDB)/ (1-c)
or, the multiplier DY/DB = (1-c)/ (1-c) = 1
Thus the balanced budget multuiplier is always equal to one. IF both G and T are increased by equal amounts of DB, there will be an income expansion of DY.= DB
Y in Income, T is TAx, G is Governement expanditure, I is investment, a and c are constants. Meaning of c is marginal propensity to consume.
Notes:From a Keynesian point of view, a balanced budget in the public sector is achieved when the government has enough fiscal discipline to be able to equate the revenues with expenditure over the business cycles. In other words, a government's budget is balanced if its income is equal to its expenditure. This allows for a deficit in periods of low economic prospects that however needs to be matched by a surplus in periods of high economic activity.
Say what? No I don’t get it and I don’t want to, it is a crock, well maybe not to a math wiz, but to me. Would you use this in your home, if you do – STOP! Let me educate you; don’t spend more than you make. Wait there is more, decide what you need to spend every month to have shelter (including utilities), food and basic necessities (health insurance is a necessity), then figure out how much income you have, then pay your bills? Yes, it is simple, ask Dave Ramsey. http://www.daveramsey.com/
To keep taxes low and to stop the spending, we only need to look to our constitution. No there is no article or section that spells out how to balance the budget, but there are enumerations that say what congress can and cannot do. I hate to tell you this, but all the junk laws they have passed for the last 100 years or more are unconstitutional. Let’s start by eliminating everything that the constitution does not provide for. These are just off the top of my head, in no special order and by no means complete. Lets get rid of czars, healthscare, welfare, social security, medicare, medicaide, illegal aliens (if we fined them and then deported, we could be ahead) ACORN subsidies, money for anything that is NOT within the bounds of congress. Forget all the “general welfare” clauses. Get rid of it all, then only collect taxes on what congress is allowed to do. It reads like this:
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, To borrow money on the credit of the United States; to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (fyi ~ general welfare does not have anything to do with a monthly check from the US Government-really it doesn’t)
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; (P)
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; (could the fed be charged with this?)
To establish post offices and post roads; (P)
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (this does not say give billions to the NEA)
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; (P)
To provide and maintain a navy; (P)
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (P)
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in
the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (P)
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government.
Seriously, I did not see one thing in here that gave congress the right to take tax money and redistribute it for equality. In fact, we would all enjoy the fruits of lower taxes and increased jobs and I didn’t name all that should be cut. My point is proven though, we don’t need an amendment to balance the budget we need a congress that is willing to do the job! Stop paying people to do nothing, stop paying for people’s homes, stop paying for Nancy Pelosi’s private airplane! She is rich enough to afford to travel on her own, if she doesn’t like it, she can quit!
My final and most valid reason for NOT amending our constitution is that our congress has overstepped and usurped boundaries and powers not granted, when specifically spelled out in our constitution. What will give them incentive to obey these 2 amendments? The way to solve this problem is to take our power back. Do not let them usurp powers, when they start to push a bill through such as healthscare or cap and trade our duty was to immediately impeach these usurpers! Stop listening to those who say we can’t and lets do it! We didn’t, there is no consequence anymore to making any law that congress wants. Instead of holding their feet to the fire we begged, sent letters telling them we will fire them, and held up signs and marched. Congress snubbed the people, called them all manner of irreverent names, and then did what they wanted. HOW do you think another amendment will stop this? Americans act like the Government rules over us and we need to go along with their power grubbing. Man up America,( I love this, I first heard Michelle Malkin say it at the first Smart Girl Politics Summit in 2009) learn the constitution, quit watching mainstream media, and learn what is happening on your own! You have responsibilities to this Country too!
We don’t need amendments, we need to enforce our powers over congress, and we need to have consequences. We need to make sure that all 3 branches know that the 4th branch (We the People) is boots on the ground and we are the ones with complete power and control. We need to enforce our rules of recall and get it in states that do not have it. Say NO to Amendments, Stand up for what is Right and Constitutional.
In : Constitution
Tags: constitution amendments "term limits"
