13 votes

U.S. Lawmakers To Possibly Dismantle The Constitution

Balanced Budget Convention Gains Steam As Congressman Calls For Official Evaluation

Rep. Duncan Hunter on Tuesday asked Congress to evaluate whether enough states have officially called for a constitutional convention to propose a balanced budget amendment — marking the next step toward what could be an historic gathering.

A spokesman for Mr. Boehner, Michael Steel, would only say that the speaker’s lawyers will review Mr. Hunter’s request.

“Beyond that, I don’t have any comment at this time,” he said.

Legal scholars say that while an amendment convention has never been tried, it is legitimate.

However, analysts are split on whether it’s a good idea.

Some fear the danger of a runaway convention, which though called for a specific purpose such as proposing a balanced budget amendment, instead ends up rewriting much of the founding document. Others dismiss that, saying the convention can be limited, and that states will have a chance to approve or reject whatever comes out of a convention.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

. . . it is like gun control . . .

The clowns in Washington do not exactly show interest or respect for the existing Constitution (ultimate law of the land), I surely would not trust them to alter it.

It is like "gun control", the only people controlled by gun control are those that follow the law in the first place.

Yea the states can decide

Just like the 16th amendment.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" W. Durant

The "balanced budget" amendment.

Read: tax increase. Raise more revenue to justify the spending.

Every BBA proposal I've ever seen since they've been trying to do this since the 90s includes some kind of provision for a national salestax.

The Europification of America continues unabated.

bigmikedude's picture

"states will have a chance to approve or reject whatever

comes out of a convention."

Yea, WHO? WHO in the state approves or rejects? It certainly WILL NOT BE the people and voting citizens who naively think this might do them some good.

From: http://americanpolicy.org/2011/10/23/constitutional-conventi...

Their solution will be a disaster for one simple reason – no one can control a Constitutional Convent. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned its purpose. It doesn’t matter how well planned. It doesn’t matter what the actual resolution says and the people think they are approving. A Con Con has no oversight or rules other than those made by the actual participating delegates themselves. There are no rules for selecting delegates.

And -

Article V gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide. It does not matter if the states passed resolutions as Fruth proposes, containing absolute guidelines for delegate selection. The Constitution provides no rules – it is up to Congress to decide how delegates are selected and what qualifications they will have. The guidelines proposed by Fruth carry absolutely no weight in the final process – even if every state passes the exact same resolution including those rules. Again, Article V simply says that when 34 states have called for a Con Con the Congress “shall call a Convention…” Period.

Quote from: http://americanpolicy.org/2011/10/23/constitutional-conventi...

Abolish the Constitution Includes the Federal Government

Federal government powers are derived from the U.S. Constitution.

What happens immediately after a 28th amendment proposed to abolish all seven articles and 27 amendments of the Constitution in effect is signed into law by the President?

1. All federal elected offices (congress, president, judiciary) become defunct of rule.

2. All federal statutes, laws (public and private) and regulations cease to exist as there is no authority to enforce them.

3. Bye, bye U.S. Department of Murder (a.k.a. Department of Defense).
4. Bye, bye U.S. Treasury (and the Internal Revenue Service).
5. The dollar is no longer the global reserve currency.

And so on and so on.

Will there be financial pain for people? Of course, including myself as my social security income and veteran healthcare benefits would end. But I'll gladly sacrifice all of that for freedom because I value it above all else.

Do you?

First off, the president doesn't have any power with amendments

states control the final say on amendments. The president can't vote or veto anything in this regard.


One scope of governance
(ex. international / national ~ 'federal' / state / county / township / estate / domicile / self)
isn't necessarily more oppressive than another.

IMO establishing public Trusts where individuals have the prerogative to endow whichever municipal chapter one believes has value (while reserving the right to withdraw from abuse), would go a long way towards resolving the issues you cite

More here

In my view

The American Constitution essentially consists of 3 parts
(arguably 4 if including the Declaration of Independence as a Preamble)

Bill of Rights ~ outlining some practical limits concerning legal conduct
(ex. no.8 'excessive bail shall not be required')
Articles which define the branches of governance ~ Executive / Legislative / Judicial
rectifying Amendments

What is missing is a clear articulation concerning those ethical principles of individual agency which are not to be violated.

Accordingly, I believe there are 6 based on 'orthogonal' autochthony
i property
ii currency (ie. one's money)
iii corporality (one's body)
iv sovereignty (free travel)
v philosophy (free speech)
vi spirituality (freedom of religion)

More here

get a .com

so I can look at your stuff.
I'm not getting a face book anytime soon and I wish you had a website so I could follow your works more closely. I keep bumping into your ideas and I like them.


I should ask: can you still read the material if visiting the web-page? I was under the impression that non-FB visitors could.

Ours being a fledgling organization too, could you recommend any freely decent hosting sites?

get a website!

so I can look at your stuff.

I'm not getting a face book anytime soon and I keep running into your stuff and I like it. I wish you would get a .com so I could follow it more closely.

At last

can i ask who your intended audience is?

who are you hoping will read this work?


since the election which I'm involved in is for Philadelphia Council District 8, civically it would be for those voters; politically of course, anyone is welcome to check it out, particularly those more Libertarian-leaning

are you open to any suggestions?




great and thanks


Yes a new constitution but not written by politicians

Let's create one together. Let's cloud source a new constitution right here on this site. I am up for debating anyone about the infallibility of our current constitution.

A new constitution is the only way to go. Close all the loop holes, leave nothing to the imagination.
-Take the power of deciding controversy between individuals and the government out the the hands of the government. (true judiciary of the people not of the government).
-Eliminate the power to tax earnings of common right.
-Ensure the privacy of the individual, and the right of the individual to be armed at all times with whatever one wants.
-Ensure no property or person can be taken by government.
-Ensure the right of the individual to Be-Do-Have-Trade without permission or interference from government so long as one doesn't directly and proximately harm another.

We don't need what most think of as a balanced budget amendment.

Any such amendment whose purpose is to ensure the budget is balanced (with maybe an exception for actual invasion/war time and natural disasters) need only do the following:

Article 28

"Congress shall not pass any law establishing any thing as legal tender in payment of debt, nor any law respecting the discharge of indebtedness, nor shall Congress issue, emit, or circulate any notes of indebtedness or bills of credit."

"The power of Congress to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, is hereby repealed."

"All taxes raised to pay the debts of the United States shall be apportioned."

"The term 'income' as used in the sixteenth article of amendment to this Constitution shall mean and include the realized net gain or profit arising from a corporate privilege granted by Act of Congress."

"Congress shall not appropriate more money than is in the treasury, or more than is levied from an apportioned tax, unless during time of invasion, rebellion, or natural disaster, and without a vote of three-fourths of both Houses."

"All current laws inconsistent with this article are null and void."

"Violations of this article shall constitute the crime of Plunder and shall be evidence of Treason as an Act of War against the several States, or any of Them. Punishment for Plunder shall include removal from office, ineligibility to hold any office of profit or trust under the United States or any of Them, loss of citizenship regardless of how acquired, restitution to the Treasury, and any additional fines or punishments the Congress may from time to time proscribe."

Why bother amending a constitution we dont follow?



The Constitution was written

for a moral society. The words "restore the Constitution" in my mind is to restore a moral people.

Without the Constitution, it will be established that morals are a thing of the past, as we have been seeing for quite some time.

While the Constitution is not perfect, I believe that we must get back to the principles of it, before we discuss amending it, or taking certain ones out.

Scrapping the Constitution now, we would not have a "Law of the Land" to reference, uphold and hold those accountable, specifically concerning the Bill of Rights which I hold so dear. Those who oppose us will gladly remove the 2nd, which protects the other 9.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Dead on, it gives us the

Dead on, it gives us the moral high ground. Believe me folks, it is much easier to convince your neighbors to support the Constitution, than it is to start from scratch.

On the bright side, all they

On the bright side, all they can do is propose amendments. It's up to the States whether or not the proposed amendments are added to the Constitution.


No, they can propose an entirely new document.

And they can put in a new, lower requirement for it to take effect.

Amendments to the current Constitution require 3/4 ratification.

But they could submit an entirely new document to the States that requires only say 20 States for it to take effect. (for those 20 States)

They could even be buttheads and stick to the original minimum of 9 States. (though that was 3/4 of the number of States at the time)

Once a "new government" is formed under new rules, other States will start ratifying just like the last time. The inertia will be in favor of the "new" rather than what we already know does not work. The same arguments about staying united will be used. Some states, perhaps maybe Texas as a likely candidate, might hold out for a few years, but the pressure and geo-political realities will force their hand.

This is EXACLTY how the Articles of Confederation were abandoned. (but not repealed or amended)

This doesn't mean we won't end up with something better than what we have now, but that all depends on who the delegates are, and since Congress controls their selection (they can even appoint themselves) and it is Congress that screwed this pooch, I won't keep my hopes up.

I am no expert

but isn't there already a way to amend it? I think it's a bad idea because that would make a debt ceiling unconstitutional. They would borrow and tax to infinity just to balance their precious bloated appetites for more control.

They already have the damn 14th amendment that says the debt can't be opposed. That's why they always vote in favor of raising the ceiling. Now they've abandoned that idea altogether. What will they think of next?

The 14th says the debt shall not be questioned.

It does not say new debt has to be issued to pay off old debt.

The President is required to pay the debt.
If Congress doesn't borrow more, thus adding new debt, to give him the cash to pay off old debt, and they won't give him the authority "debt ceiling" to do it as needed on his own, then the ONLY thing he CAN do, is use actual funds in the Treasury to pay them down. That means little or nothing for any other appropriation.

Do not confuse paying a debt with credit card balance transfers.

Apparently there is, but our cowardly Congress

isn't making use of it. Maybe if enough state legislatures are behind this idea, it will help Congress to grow a spine.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

The wackos just won't stop

The wackos just won't stop until they're incapacitated. Any country that would nearly ratify the ERA has serious issues and should never EVER be allowed to modify the original document again EXCEPT to rescind some of the amendments like the 19th, 17th, 16th ...

Thankfully, some of the states have rescinded their previous calls for a convention. We need to keep an eye on these criminals and encourage MORE states which have already called for a convention to rescind those calls. In fact, any candidate running for the legislature of any state should be grilled on their stance regarding the appropriateness of calling for a national convention. If the candidate wavers or supports such a call, expose him on the spot.

Dismantling the Constitution probably a good place to start

but given their usual ineptitude, I wouldn't expect much to be accomplished.

Go away, hater of liberty.

Go away, hater of liberty.