ENCOURAGING ANGELS: A Proposed Balanced Budget Amendment Carries With it the Possibility to Erase the Constitution of the United States as We Know It

Image Credit: June Gold at Amazon

By Stan Szymanski

By nature I am not a political person. But I most certainly believe that the Constitution of the United States of America is the most important document in the history of the world that guarantees the rights of American citizens.

So it was with shock when I read that Rep. Jody Arrington (R-TX. 19th District) had introduced H.Con.Res.15 – Calling an Article V Convention for proposing a Fiscal Responsibility Amendment to the United States Constitution and stipulating ratification by a vote of We the People, and for other purposes.

As I understand it, the stated purpose of this proposed bill is a form of a ‘balanced budget amendment’. That sounds great on the surface. The problem is if you look just under the surface you may see the monstrosity for what it really is.

There are currently 27 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. I say this as a reminder to Rep. Arrington and anyone else who is supporting H. Con. Res. 15-If you would like to pass an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Article V of the Constitution provides two (2) ways to do this; not just the one you are proposing.

The first way is to just propose the amendment to congress and get a two thirds majority in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority in the Senate. This is how it has worked since 1789 in practice.

The problem with H. Con. Res. 15 is that this bill is proposing that ‘Fiscal Responsibility’ be accomplished through the convening of a Constitutional Convention or a ‘Con-Con’.

Why should we be concerned with those who call for and the process of calling for a ‘Con-Con’?:

__________________________

Please refer to our proviso at the end of the article regarding any reproduction of this writing (This means those who modify my writing for their benefit and own financial gain and even plagaristically put their name on my work) and consider a donation to Encouraging Angels today. We need your support

—————————————-

…’An Article V Constitutional Convention would threaten individual rights and our nation’s very form of government. Individual rights are secured by the Constitution, and a Con-Con would have the inherent power to become a “runaway” convention (emphasis added) that could completely change the Constitution. How do we know such a convention could become a “runaway”?

1. There’s the precedent of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which completely rewrote the Articles of Confederation and changed the ratification procedure; and

2. There’s the right of the sovereign people meeting in convention to alter or abolish their form of government (emphasis added) (as stated in the Declaration of Independence), which could include rewriting the Constitution and changing the ratification procedure.’…(John Birch Society)

In order to call a Con-Con two-thirds of the states must first agree. H.Con.Res. 15 uses misleading reasoning, IMHO, to meet the 2/3rds threshold:

…’Whereas congressional and State records of plenary applications for amendments on any subject and applications for the single subject of Inflation-fighting Fiscal Responsibility Amendments compiled by the Article V Library counts Nevada’s “continuing” application, reported February 8, 1979, in the Congressional Record, as the 34th thus achieving the “two thirds” congressional mandate to call the Convention for proposing amendments; congressional records reported 39 applications by the end of 1979, 40 in 1983, and 42 total applications over time’…(H. Con Res. 15)

So H. Con Res. 15 is apparently trying to use a claim of aggregation of applications (not a current vote) to reach the brink to call a Con-Con.

If a Constitutional Convention were indeed called, this proposed resolution does not limit the scope of the Con-Con. From what I understand, the delegates could bring anything to a vote that they wanted to.

Why is this dangerous?

Not only could one or numerous new constitutional amendments be proposed, but the the current form of government, as stated in the Constitution, could be abolished.

This is what happened in 1787 when the Constitutional Convention abolished the Articles of Confederation and brought forth the Constitution.

At a minimum, a Con-Con could bring about a reversal of the existing Constitutional limitations on governmental authority and intrusion into the live of the people. Nothing is off the table-It could literally be ‘anything goes’. Perhaps a smorgasbord of New World Order policies with a sprinkle of George Soros economics.

I called the office of Rep. Arrington this morning to check the status of H. Con Res. 15 and spoke to a nice young gentleman there and he told me that the proposed bill is in the House Judiciary Committee.

If you do not like the outline of the possibilities of H. Con Res. 15, perhaps it is time for you to call your representative and let them know your opinion before we are faced with the possibility of having our Constitution erased.

———-

If you appreciate this article can you consider a gift to Encouraging Angels for the intelligence we provided today? Click this link to give. We need the support. Links to this article are encouraged. Reproductions of this writing are only allowed by written permission of the author and those reproductions must include this proviso of request for support, how this writing may be reproduced and following disclaimers.

All opinions are that of the authors and not necessarily that of Encouraging Angels.

All rights reserved. 

Stan Szymanski (or Encouraging Angels) is not a medical doctor. This is not medical advice. In all matters pertaining to the health and care of a human being consult a medical doctor. This is the not legal, financial or personal advice. Consult appropriate professionals in those fields for that type of advice. For informational purposes only.