Gov. Ron DeSantis suggests a Constitutional Convention to write a Balanced Budget Amendment

[johnwk]

.

See: Governors press for a Balanced Budget Amendment


"DeSantis told reporters during the joint Idaho press conference:

“I am convinced that you are not going to have Congress all of a sudden change its behavior for the long term. I think the reason we’ve gotten into this with respect to fiscal is because there are certain incentives for the people that are in Washington to behave the way they do. And we need to change those incentives.”

He continued:

“If Idaho and Montana join the fight, that gets us to 29 there’s a couple other states that are on the precipice as well. You need 34 states to trigger Article Five, where you would actually write an amendment and then eventually send it to the states for ratification."


I wonder why Governor DeSantis is so interested in triggering Article V, calling for a constitutional convention with the dangers involved, to write a balanced budget amendment, when our Founders provided a specific procedure to deal with any deficits created by Congress's borrowing during the course of a fiscal year. That procedure is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Perhaps Ron DeSantis ought to defend our Founder's remedy, which would create a very real moment of accountability for each State's Congressional Delegation if they should borrow during the course of a fiscal year, which would then require them to bring home a bill to their own State Legislature to pay an apportioned share out of their own State Treasury to extinguish the deficit caused by Congress borrowing.

Keep in mind that every single balanced budget amendment produced since the 1980s, to the best of my knowledge and excluding the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis. Our Founder's remedy, already in our Constitution, would actually do what Ron DeSantis indicates his goal is. So, why has he not mentioned our Founder's procedure to deal with a deficit caused by Congress's borrowing?

.

JWK

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “ Chief Justice, Warren Burger

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ political relevance in 2025 continues to fall precipitously.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

He doesn’t want a balanced budget amendment. He wants a no new taxes amendment.

 

[Jkca1]

It's smart politics to look like a leader on an issue that affects all the electorate. If the economy goes south before 2028 election, Trump/Vance gets the blame. That's the only real chance I see of Ron getting the 2028 Presidential nod from the GOP which is all he cares about.

 

[Mr Person]

Now that's a perfect example of the phrase "incredibly ****ing stupid". And, predictably, of a right wing idea.

Balanced budget amendments handicap and render a country unable to respond to emergency effectively. Another vast war breaks out and what... "hold on, we can't do anything unless we amend the amendment."

We wouldn't be in this situation at all if every Reagn, Bush Jr., Trump 1, and Trump 2 did not pass tax cuts for the upper crust

 

[Hamish Howl]

He wants it because the entire document is up for grabs in a constitutional convention.

 

[johnwk]

Now that's a perfect example of the phrase "incredibly ****ing stupid". And, predictably, of a right wing idea.

Balanced budget amendments handicap and render a country unable to respond to emergency effectively. Another vast war breaks out and what... "hold on, we can't do anything unless we amend the amendment."

We wouldn't be in this situation at all if every Reagn, Bush Jr., Trump 1, and Trump 2 did not pass tax cuts for the upper crust

Your incredibly stupid thinking has brought us to a financial situation in which our national debt, including unfunded debt liabilities, is in excess of $ 136 TRILLION, with annual interest payments of about $ 1 TRILLION.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Your incredibly stupid thinking has brought us to a financial situation in which our national debt, including unfunded debt liabilities, is in excess of $ 136 TRILLION, with annual interest payments of about $ 1 TRILLION.

No. It was the thinking of Republicans that blew the surplus on tax cuts and war.

 

[johnwk]

No. It was the thinking of Republicans that blew the surplus on tax cuts and war.

What does your response have to do with what you quoted from me? What I posted are facts.

 

[iguanaman]

No. It was the thinking of Republicans that blew the surplus on tax cuts and war.

Yes they conveniently forget that it was Bill Clinton that balanced the budget and it was GW Bush that doubled our debt right after that.

 

[johnwk]

Yes they conveniently forget that it was Bill Clinton that balanced the budget and it was GW Bush that doubled our debt right after that.

What does your post have to do with the need to adopt a balanced budget amendment?

 

[Perotista]

.

See: Governors press for a Balanced Budget Amendment


"DeSantis told reporters during the joint Idaho press conference:

“I am convinced that you are not going to have Congress all of a sudden change its behavior for the long term. I think the reason we’ve gotten into this with respect to fiscal is because there are certain incentives for the people that are in Washington to behave the way they do. And we need to change those incentives.”

He continued:

“If Idaho and Montana join the fight, that gets us to 29 there’s a couple other states that are on the precipice as well. You need 34 states to trigger Article Five, where you would actually write an amendment and then eventually send it to the states for ratification."


I wonder why Governor DeSantis is so interested in triggering Article V, calling for a constitutional convention with the dangers involved, to write a balanced budget amendment, when our Founders provided a specific procedure to deal with any deficits created by Congress's borrowing during the course of a fiscal year. That procedure is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Perhaps Ron DeSantis ought to defend our Founder's remedy, which would create a very real moment of accountability for each State's Congressional Delegation if they should borrow during the course of a fiscal year, which would then require them to bring home a bill to their own State Legislature to pay an apportioned share out of their own State Treasury to extinguish the deficit caused by Congress borrowing.

Keep in mind that every single balanced budget amendment produced since the 1980s, to the best of my knowledge and excluding the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis. Our Founder's remedy, already in our Constitution, would actually do what Ron DeSantis indicates his goal is. So, why has he not mentioned our Founder's procedure to deal with a deficit caused by Congress's borrowing?

.

JWK

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “ Chief Justice, Warren Burger

I’ve been for a balanced budget amendment since Reagan first proposed it. But we don’t need a constitutional convention. We need to let congress do its thing. Draw it up, pass it with a 2/3rds majority in both chambers and let the states ratify it. This is what we elect congress to do, to do the hard things as well as continuing to ask for our money and votes. When it comes to deficits and the ever-rising national debt, one party talks a better game than the other. But neither party has been willing to do anything about it. Talk is cheap, what’s needed is action. We don’t need campaign slogans or both parties blaming the other, we need action.

If congress fails on this, vote them all out. Never happen and congress will never do anyting about the deficits and the ever rising national debt.

 

[iguanaman]

What does your post have to do with the need to adopt a balanced budget amendment?

An amendment would dangerously affect our ability to respond to emergencies like war and Clinton proved it could be done without it. He raised taxes a bit on the wealthy and kept spending under control.

 

[WorldWatcher]

An amendment would dangerously affect our ability to respond to emergencies like war and Clinton proved it could be done without it. He raised taxes a bit on the wealthy and kept spending under control.

That's easily addressed by with language that the amendment does not apply during times of declared war and that Congress only can declare war and they cannot delegate that power to the Executive or any other branch.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is an old saying, what what you ask for... You just might get it.

Once a Convention is conceive they cannot be limited as to the subject. That puts things like gun rights, LGBTQ+ equality, abortion, etc. on the table.

WW

 

[Hamish Howl]

Your incredibly stupid thinking has brought us to a financial situation in which our national debt, including unfunded debt liabilities, is in excess of $ 136 TRILLION, with annual interest payments of about $ 1 TRILLION.

How much debt is the BBB going to inflict on us, again?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Your incredibly stupid thinking has brought us to a financial situation in which our national debt, including unfunded debt liabilities, is in excess of $ 136 TRILLION, with annual interest payments of about $ 1 TRILLION.

View attachment 67574509

Well, if you get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the problem is solved. Personally, I would rather pay taxes than have move my mother-in-law living with me, but that is just me I guess.

 

[iguanaman]

That's easily addressed by with language that the amendment does not apply during times of declared war and that Congress only can declare war and they cannot delegate that power to the Executive or any other branch.

WW

There are other disasters that can occur besides war. I would rather an amendment that would permanently place higher taxes on the top tier. That seems to be the problem with our deficits. We do not spend more per capita than other similar nations except in health care due to our antiquated for profit system.

 

[johnwk]

There is an old saying, what what you ask for... You just might get it.

Once a Convention is conceive they cannot be limited as to the subject. That puts things like gun rights, LGBTQ+ equality, abortion, etc. on the table.

WW

Convening a second Constitutional Convention is a very, very dangerous idea as warned by James Madison.

”… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788

 

[Loulit01]

He wants it because the entire document is up for grabs in a constitutional convention.

This. A Constitutional Convention is highly dangerous.

A key uncertainty surrounding a constitutional convention, specifically an Article V convention, is the lack of defined rules and procedures in the Constitution itself. This means there's no clear guidance on how the convention would be organized, how it would be governed, or what the scope of its work could be, potentially leading to a "runaway convention".

Here's a breakdown of the major uncertainties:

1. Lack of Defined Rules and Procedures:
No Guidelines for Representation:
The Constitution doesn't specify how states would be represented at a convention, leaving open the possibility of unequal representation (e.g., based on population or equal representation per state).

Uncertainty about Voting Rules:
No clear rules exist on how votes would be counted or how amendments would be proposed, potentially leading to protracted debates and disagreements.

Potential for "Runaway Convention":
The Constitution doesn't limit the scope of a convention to specific issues, meaning it could expand beyond the original purpose and propose amendments on any topic, potentially undermining fundamental rights and principles.

Uncertainty about the Ratification Process:
The Constitution requires three-fourths of states to ratify amendments, but there's no guarantee that a convention could define the ratification process to make it easier to pass new amendments.

Potential for Abuse and Special Interests:
Influence of Special Interests:
A convention could be influenced by wealthy groups and special interests, potentially leading to amendments that serve their own agendas rather than the public good.
Lack of Public Input:
The lack of rules for public input could mean that the convention process is dominated by a select group of delegates, potentially excluding the voices of ordinary citizens.

 

[Loulit01]

3. Threat of Legal Disputes and Political Instability:

• No Clear Authority to Resolve Disputes:
  There's no clear judicial, legislative, or executive body with authority to resolve disputes about the convention, potentially leading to legal battles and political chaos.
  
  
• Potential for Unstable Democracy:
  The lack of clear rules and the potential for a runaway convention could threaten the stability of our democracy and lead to long and costly legal disputes.
  

4. Historical Precedent and Fear of Change:
Since no Article V convention has ever been held, there is a lack of historical precedent to guide the process, creating uncertainty about how it would function.

• Fear of Radical Change:
  Many people fear that a convention could lead to radical changes to the Constitution, potentially undermining its fundamental principles.
  

In essence, the major uncertainty surrounding an Article V convention is the lack of defined rules and procedures, which could open the door to a "runaway convention," influence from special interests, and potential for legal disputes and political instability.

 

[johnwk]

4. Historical Precedent and Fear of Change:
Since no Article V convention has ever been held, there is a lack of historical precedent to guide the process, creating uncertainty about how it would function.

Once a convention is convened, pre-existing agreements are meaningless as happened during the Convention of 1787 [ our precedent] which was called ". . . for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . . ". In the end, the Convention of 1787 produced an entirely new Government with an entirely new Constitution.

 

[Loulit01]

Once a convention is convened, pre-existing agreements are meaningless as happened during the Convention of 1787 [ our precedent] which was called ". . . for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . . ". In the end, the Convention of 1787 produced an entirely new Government with an entirely new Constitution.

Exactly. A constitutional convention is like playing Russian Roulette.

 

[Doug64]

Balanced budget amendments handicap and render a country unable to respond to emergency effectively. Another vast war breaks out and what... "hold on, we can't do anything unless we amend the amendment."

Every version of a balanced budget amendment I've seen includes methods to institute deficit spending in an emergency. It wouldn't be an issue.

I’ve been for a balanced budget amendment since Reagan first proposed it. But we don’t need a constitutional convention. We need to let congress do its thing. Draw it up, pass it with a 2/3rds majority in both chambers and let the states ratify it. This is what we elect congress to do, to do the hard things as well as continuing to ask for our money and votes.

Never going to happen, Congress isn't going to limit its own power that way unless it's forced. The only way Congress would pass a balanced budget amendment is if it looks like we're about to call an Article V Convention.

Once a Convention is conceive they cannot be limited as to the subject. That puts things like gun rights, LGBTQ+ equality, abortion, etc. on the table.

Probably true, so what? Whatever amendments the convention passes must still be ratified by 3/4 (38) of the states.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Your incredibly stupid thinking has brought us to a financial situation in which our national debt, including unfunded debt liabilities, is in excess of $ 136 TRILLION, with annual interest payments of about $ 1 TRILLION.

Where do you think money comes from? I mean, all these dollars must be coming from somewhere, right?