8/12/2019 TNA-27!12!20110620 ScottBradley BalancedBudgetAmendment

1/2

In the Founders Corner

A Balanced Budget Amendment?by Scott N. Bradley

D o we need a Balanced Bud-get Amendment? NO! A con-stitutionally sound, informedelectorate could quickly bring about theconditions that would allow the nation tobalance the federal budget and end deficitspending. Thomas Jefferson wrote: A na-tion that expects to be ignorant and free

expects what never was and never will be.The voters must come to understand thatit is our responsibility to make certain ourRepresentatives honor their oath of officeand keep their actions constrained withinthe scope and bounds established by theConstitution (no, the Constitution does notsay from each according to his ability, toeach according to his need that wasKarl Marx).

Put simply, if Congressmen were sim-ply to honor their oaths of office to abideby the Constitution, the deficit problem

would take care of itself. But were theyto fail to do so, the only way the budgetwould be balanced is through a combina-tion of gimmickry and higher taxes.

Currently, upwards of 80 percent of ex-penditures authorized by Congress and in-sisted upon by the executive branch (at thepandering insistence of the voters) violatesthe U.S. Constitution. Whether it is uncon-stitutional military adventurism aroundthe world, foreign aid, ever-expandingentitlement programs, or redistribution ofwealth to States, corporations, communi-ties, or individuals, none of these activitiesis allowed by the Charter of the Nation. Im-mediate steps must be taken to curtail theseencroachments. Sunset clauses must beincorporated into all entitlement programs,

and no additional entitlement programs au-

thorized. No Balanced Budget Amendmentis necessary if we insist that our electedRepresentatives keep their actions (and ex-penditures) within the bounds establishedby the United States Constitution!

In November 2010, using the power ofthe ballot box, we could have removed all of our unfaithful U.S. Congressmen and 1/3of our Senators. A year from now we againhave the opportunity to do the same thing,and also cleanse the executive branch.

There are currently a number of pro-posed Balanced Budget Amendments thathave been introduced in the House andSenate. Each of these potential proposedBalanced Budget Amendments containsa number of fatal flaws: They all allowdeficit spending based upon agreement of60 or 67 percent approval of both housesof Congress (depending upon the amend-ment being considered). With this stipula-tion, 60 Senators and 261 Congressmen,or 67 Senators and 292 Congressmenmay approve a deficit budget. Becausemost Senators and Congressmen support

the unconstitutional idea of buying votesback home by delivering largess out of thepublic treasury to their constituents, it isnot hard to see how most budget votes willeasily attain the required threshold as porkis added to the budget to buy the vote ofa Senator or Congressman so that he canbuy the votes for himself back home! Thepractice of adding additional expendituresto buy the votes of reluctant Congressmen

will continue at an even greater rate thanit has in the past. Historically, most budgetvotes have easily attained a 60 percent ap-proval threshold. So we can see that unlessRepresentatives are willing to keep theiractions within constitutional bounds, mostbudgets will exceed the available funds,and the result will be further deficits inspite of the Balanced Budget Amendment.

And if the Balanced Budget Amend-ment is in place, and when the requireddeficit-allowing threshold is not attain-able, but the majority still want to spend

the money they feel they need to spend(usually for items and issues not consti-tutionally allowed, but for such items asentitlement programs, stimulus packages,etc., and which they think are impor-tant for them to get reelected), they willwring their hands in impotent despair andbemoan the fact that the Constitution nowrequires the budget to be balanced; there-fore, they will be required to raise taxesto cover the expenses, which they maydo by meeting another vote threshold.Even those who prefer a tax increase toa budget deficit will at some point reachthe breaking point where they will nolonger be able to sustain themselves be-cause the government has devoured theirentire living (He has erected a multitudeof New Offices, and sent hither swarmsof Officers to harass our people, and eatout their substance. Declaration of In-dependence). The proposed amendmentsalso allow the national debt ceiling to beraised with approval of 60 Senators and261 Congressmen.

A candidate for the United States Senate in 2006 and2010, Scott Bradley holds a Ph.D. in ConstitutionalLaw. He is the founder and chairman of the Consti-tution Commemoration Foundation, Inc., and is theauthor of a book and DVD/CD lecture series entitledTo Preserve the Nation .

www.theNewAme i an. om 19

THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE

Scott N.Bradley

8/12/2019 TNA-27!12!20110620 ScottBradley BalancedBudgetAmendment

2/2

Additionally, all of these provisionsmay be set aside with the approval of51 Senators and 218 Congressmen if theUnited States is involved in a declaredwar. More astounding, however, is the

provision that allows continued deficitspending if 60 Senators and 261 Con-gressmen can be frightened into the beliefthat there is a serious threat to nationalsecurity made fearful enough to voteto suspend the Balanced Budget Amend-ment. If this provision seems reasonable,consider how rare the moments are inrecent decades where the fearmongershave not promoted the idea that we arein a constant state of some kind of threat( la the TSAs grope and nude photo-opsessions every time you fly). Considerthe fright-frenzy that led to the passageof the Fourth Amendment-destroyingUSA PATRIOT Act in 2001 (House vote:357 yeas, 66 nay; Senate vote: 98 yeas, 1nays), and its recent renewal (House vote:250 yeas, 153 nays, 28 not voting forspecial favors could 11 more yeas havebeen bought? Senate vote: 72 yeas, 23nays, 5 not voting). The lopsided votesassociated with the passage of a host ofother freedom-destroying national se-curity issues such as the fabricated fear

that drove the passage of the 2002 IraqWar Resolution and the Military Com-missions Act could also be cited. Foodfor thought!

In addition, it would be a miracle if the

national leadership did not regularly resortto spending off budget (which is cur-rently a common practice for importantexpenditures that they do not want to havecalculated in the national debt for variousreasons).

Todays politicians have buried the na-tion in debt. They have done this by ignor-ing the constitutional limits of their power,acting as though they have power to tax andspend for any whim that strikes them. Theytax trillions of hard-earned dollars eachyear from the citizens of this land, only tospend hundreds of billions (and even tril-lions) more each year than they collect.Sadly, most of the spending is not autho-rized by the United States Constitution.

There is an additional extreme dangerwe must associate with the effort to ob-tain a Balanced Budget Amendment tothe Constitution: We may be certain thatin the current political world a BalancedBudget Amendment will not garner theconstitutionally required two-thirdsmajority of both houses of Congress

and ratification of three-quarters of allstates to become an amendment. Conse-quently, as the call for a Balanced Bud-get Amendment increases in popularityamong the good and caring people of thenation, they will become frustrated withCongress and call for a constitutionalconvention as provided for in Article Vof the Constitution. In 1983, the UnitedStates came within two states of calling aconstitutional convention, as the popularoutcry for a Balanced Budget Amend-ment pushed the nation dangerouslyclose to a Constitution-destroying con-stitutional convention. If that happens,we will lose the entire Constitution, as

a new one will be written and broughtforth (as happened in 1787 during theonly other constitutional convention thisnation has experienced). In the currentpolitical environment, with the currentlack of soundly principled statesmen,and with the current state of ignoranceamong the electorate, we must not be ledinto the trap of a con-con!

The solution is a return to the constraintsof power on the federal government thatexist within the U.S. Constitution. Theproblem is not with the Constitution. The

Constitution is not flawed. It does not needto be changed in order to bring spendingunder control. The problem is that wehave stopped applying the Constitution.We do not have to amend the Constitutionto solve this problem, and we do not haveto risk a con-con to bring things back intoproper order. The solution is to begin againto abide within the constraints so carefullydefined within the plain English wordsof the U.S. Constitution. James Madi-son stated that the powers of the nationalgovernment were few and well defined.Perhaps, when the people of the nationagain understand that fact, the nationsleadership will be compelled to abide bytheir oath to uphold the Constitution of theUnited States.

Hopefully, the electorate will becomesoundly grounded constitutionalistswho will vigorously insist that their Rep-resentatives abide by their oath to upholdthe Constitution, and that they will nothesitate to remove from office any and allwho violate that strict oath. n

tHE NEW AMErIcAN JuNE 20, 201120

THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE