COS balance budget amendment in their own words. There’s a fair question from Linda on this Indiana COS thread asking “And how many amendments did Mark Levine Propose? 11 or more! Why would congress follow a BBA amendment anyway. It would just give them reason to raise our taxes.” Convention of States Indiana’s reply: Linda Bishop: The amendments would be written in a way that they would be forced to follow it or be ineligible to run for office again. We want to make it unconstitutional to spend more than is brought in. If they dont follow that they are ineligible to run for office again the rest of their lives. The states run the elections, so the states have the power to remove them from the ballot. We agree that they will try to raise taxes to balance the budget which is why we also support an amendment to outlaw the VAT tax and put in place limits on how much citizens can be taxed. The states do have the power to limit Washington! They will never limit themselves.” Let’s unpack that. The first and obvious opposition reply is why is COS focused on the budget when the problem is the Spending? There’s no concern about what money is being spent on. The next thing that’s absent is the amendment. Why isn’t COS sharing this magic cure-all amendment language? If they did share amendment language they would have to explain to people that it’s meaningless because the delegates at the article 5 convention are the ones that debate, write and vote on the amendments so it’s impossible to know what the final amendment language would be. But COS admits that and most have heard that so a more likely reason could be COS knows that if they share the desired amendment language, activist might decide that they don’t like what COS is trying to do. The COS admin says if the Congressmen spends more than is brought in that they will be in eligible to run for office again and it sounds like that will be achieved by the state removing violators from the ballot. So the plan is to have the states follow the ballot access rules but the states already have ballot access rules and they did not follow them when balloting for the 2008 federal election: Obama. Obama was placed on ballots without having provided the candidate qualifications. (“Fake” birth certificate or not, the point is that no birth certificate was supplied.) It sounds like COS’s plan is to give the government more authority to decide who may and may not be candidates. Is that “limiting” the government as they claim is all they want to do? Ironically some states already have a great deal of authority regarding their elected federal agents. Some state constitutions have congressional recall laws. Why are states not using their power? How do we know they would they use new powers? It would be much simpler and transparent if the time and money was spent on an effort to amend all state constitutions adding Congressional recall power. COS’s bba “solution” is unbelievably flawed and the admin admits it saying “We agree that they will try to raise taxes to balance the budget…” In order for the COS bba amendment to not simply increases taxes it replies on ANOTHER amendment (or two???) to be debated, proposed and ratified. If those things don’t happen they have achieved unconstitutional spending and tax increases. Quite a gamble to take when we could simply demand the Constitution we already have be followed. If the enumerated powers were followed and violators held accountable.
Posted on: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:36:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015