A must read…why the Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea by a Constitutional scholar. Kind of makes me rethink my support of Senator Jim DeMint.
By Publius Huldah. You can not responsibly support a proposed Amendment to Our Constitution unless you have read and understand the proposal and how it would change our Constitution. You must look behind the nice sounding name! Will the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) really "reign in" the federal government? Will it really "show them" that they have to balance their budget the same as we do? Or does it actually legalize spending which is now un … Read More
via Publius-Huldah's Blog
That Mr. G Guy's Blog 
Publius Huldah overstates her case. While I will readily agree that most of what Congress spends, it spends unconstitutionally, the fact is that Congress is spending the money.
To continue that spending, the amendment requires supermajorities. That’s not a small concession.
However, I agree the overall thrust of her argument has merit. What we should debate is whether a balanced budget amend is necessary? What good will it do? Since Congress is already spending most of the money it spends unconstitutionally, what good is a constitutional amendment?
It is the People, both voters and congressmen, who have made this problem. We have not abided by the principles we supposedly hold dear.
However, I agree the overall thrust of her argument has merit. What we should debate is whether a balanced budget amend is necessary?
That’s the thrust of her argument Tom, that going down that road, the BBA, will set a bad precedent.
Mr G – you hit the nail with the word “precedent” which is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. For instance – they pass a bad law, Roe v Wade comes to mind (and most legal types know it’s bad law), but more bad laws are defended by using Roe v Wade as “precedent.” And round and round it goes.
I’ve been asking the question for years, “Why is the government involved in all this crap they have no business doing or spending money on?” Art, entertainment, science, on and on. It’s crazy!
Thanks for joining the conversation. Another bad precedent might be set when the Supreme Court gets to hearing the Obama care case, especially if Elena Kagan doesn’t recuse herself.
Mike G.
The issue is precedent. We have decades of precedent. Right or wrong (I would argue wrong.), we have spent decades spending money on unconstitutional programs. So we have a question.
Do we revise the Constitution to reflect reality, or do we revise our behavior to reflect a belief in limited government?
The Problem: Too many of us do not believe in limited government. Too many of us think it is okay to use government to appropriate our neighbor’s property for the “public good” (i.e., to rob Peter to pay Paul).
Pingback: WE DO NOT NEED A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT | Citizen Tom