Balanced budget amendment & NO, NADA, NINE.

44 %
56 %
Information about Balanced budget amendment & NO, NADA, NINE.
Education

Published on February 16, 2014

Author: RobertPowell7

Source: slideshare.net

Description

Why the Balanced Budget Amendments are false ideas.
Done by premiere Constitutional lawyer. Read and understand the devious and or mis-understood reasons why attempts to amend the Constitution are dangerous to your health and treasure.

Balanced Budget Amendment & the fight against “Anything changed is no longer the same”

Q: Doesn’t our Constitution already provide for controlling federal spending? A: Yes. It lists the purposes for which Congress may spend money. Spending is limited by the “enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution: • If it’s on the list of powers delegated to Congress or the President, Congress may lawfully appropriate funds for it. Read the Constitution and highlight the delegated powers – then you will know what Congress may lawfully spend money on. • If it’s not listed, Congress may not lawfully spend money on it.

Q: What is the connection between the Oath of office (Art. VI, cl. 3) and federal spending? A: All federal and State officials take an Oath to support the federal Constitution. The Constitution lists what Congress may lawfully spend money on. When people in Congress spend money on objects not listed in the Constitution; and when State officials accept federal funds for objects not listed (race to the top, common core, etc.) they violate their Oath to support the Constitution.

Q: ARE THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION, AGRICULTURE, LABOR, ENERGY, HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, DHS, ETC., ETC., CONSTITUTIONAL? NOPE! NADA! NINE! Power over education, agriculture, labor relations, energy, etc., etc., was NOWHERE in the Constitution delegated to the federal government. Those powers were reserved by the States or the People. DHS – a national police force under the President’s control – is becoming our version of the East German STASI. Yet the States colluded with the feds in nationalizing law enforcement because they wanted the federal funds and military equipment.

Q: HOW DID WE GET A NATIONAL DEBT OF OVER $17 TRILLION, PLUS TRILLIONS MORE IN UNFUNDED LIABILITIES? A: Congress spent on objects for which it has no constitutional authority, such as teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly, bailouts of private businesses, welfare handouts, farming programs, education schemes, and grants paid to States to bribe them into implementing unconstitutional federal programs. It was the unconstitutional spending which gave us this crushing debt. Pssssst! This is divide and conquer, and many call this: “Pork barrel Spending” “this is buying the vote”

Q: THE 10TH AMENDMENT SAYS ALL POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES OR TO THE PEOPLE. A: The States sold them to the federal government. The States have become administrative subdivisions of the federal government, and their aim is to siphon as much money as possible from the federal government. Research into who (party majority) voted for these issues in the past, will assist your political understanding. Any child knows, this was folly. With the rupees comes the rulesWith the shekels comes the stickWith the mites comes the mightyWell, you get the idea. Economic slavery

Q: WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING? A: We must eliminate pork. We must systematically dismantle unconstitutional federal departments & agencies. Except that the Department of Education should be shut down, and its bureaucrats sent home, by this Friday at 5:00 p.m. All these functions must be restored to The States or The People. Editor: As a bit of history, much of the challenge we face came about in the late 1920’s and 1930’s with verbal manipulation. This is overt in todays political climate. In the case of education, Socialized Education, United Nations UNESCO education and now Common Core are destroying generations of young peoples critical abilities---See: Crimes against Humanity: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/27938724

Q: WHY WON’T A BBA FIX OUR DEBT PROBLEM? ( BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT ) A: They don’t address the cause of the problem: Congress spends where they have no constitutional authority to spend.The BBAs don’t eliminate the unconstitutional spending; and they place no limits on the amount of the unconstitutional spending Q: Is a BBA harmful? A: Yes. All versions of the BBA legalize spending which is now illegal and unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to Congress or the President. Q: Would a BBA fundamentally transform our Constitution? A: Yes. All versions of the BBA amend out the enumerated powers limitations on the federal government and transform the federal government into one of general & unlimited powers where the feds may spend money on whatever they want as long as they don’t exceed the spending limits “imposed” by the BBA. Q: So a BBA changes the constitutional criterion for spending? A: Yes! All versions of the BBA ( balanced Budget Amendment ) change the criterion from: • WHAT Congress spends money on (it must be an enumerated power), to • A LIMIT on total spending where Congress can spend money on whatever they want.

Q: HOW ARE SPENDING LIMITS IN THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE BBA SET? A: • by the amount they take from us in taxes, or • by a certain percentage of the GDP, ( Gross Domestic Product ) or • by the additional amounts they borrow to finance their spending. Editors note: Like addicted gamblers, this will not stop until the objects are removed ( Agencies ) and Constitution followed

Q: CAN THESE LIMITS ON SPENDING BE RAISED? A: Yes! In most versions of the BBA, Congress can vote to raise the spending limit (just as they vote every few months to raise the debt limit). In the version of the BBA by Nick Dranias and “Compact for America”, Congress and at least 26 States can vote at any time to raise the spending limit. Not only do BBAs fail to address the cause of the problem (Congress spending on unconstitutional objects); none of them limit the amount of Congress’ spending because the spending limits can be raised whenever they want to raise them. So! Just as Congress votes every few months to raise the debt ceiling; they can vote whenever they want to raise the spending limit.

Q: WHAT OF MARK LEVIN’S AMENDMENT “TO LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING” (PAGE 73 OF HIS BOOK)? A: Levin’s amendment makes lawful the spending which is now unconstitutional. And his amendment does nothing to control spending: • Levin substitutes a “budget” [which permits spending on whatever people in the federal government want[1] for the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution; and, • While it pretends to limit spending to income, it actually permits Congress to suspend the spending limit and to continue to raise the national debt limit. So! Like all other BBAs, Levin’s legalizes the present unconstitutional spending and does nothing to curb spending. It legalizes the status quo.

Q: WHAT ABOUT RANDY BARNETT’S VERSION OF A BBA? A: Randy Barnett, law professor, redefines “unbalanced budget” to mean a budget where the national debt is greater than it was the previous year. [Yes, you read that right.] Barnett’s amendment doesn’t address the unconstitutional spending which caused the massive debt. And it delegates sweeping new powers to the President to stop funding anything he doesn’t want funded. E.g., it permits him to ban appropriations authorized by the Constitution, such as all funding for our military (which is authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 11-14).

Q: WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF VERSIONS OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT? A: The sole purpose is to remove the enumerated powers limitations on the federal government and give it general & unlimited powers. Remember the all important “we have a crisis to fix“ Government mantra. Total mis-information. For more information on various versions of the BBA see: 1- Balancing the Budget? Or Adding A National Sales Tax To The Income Tax? 2- Why the balanced budget amendment is a hoax and a deadly trap 3- Why the balanced budget amendment is the worst idea ever These three cogent dissertations are on PubliusHuldah site.

ENDNOTES: 1. The federal government didn’t have a budget until the Budget Act of 1921, which purported to grant budget making power (taxes & appropriations) to the President. The Budget Act is unconstitutional. Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, grants to Congress Power to lay and collect Taxes; and Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to Congress Power to make appropriations: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” Before the Budget Act of 1921, Congress made appropriations for items listed in the Constitution as the need arose; determined the taxes, and kept records of both.

IN CONCLUSION The Constitution is not the problem, changing it is! The framers of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, were unique in the History of the world, and had all seen Repression of many kinds.Their understanding of other countries benefits and failings manifested in the Documents of our Countries founding. Attempts to weaken these most valuable documents began not long after the ink dried. In discussing only one as example: When Senators from the States became elected by majority vote, instead of being chosen and controlled by the States various Legislatures, the floodgates opened to what we have today in our present Government operations. Accountability was lost. That single step, to fix a non-crisis - misunderstood by the public, but well understood by the amendment proponents, was only one step. This process is called: “Change within the Form” The Balanced Budget Amends-- On the other hand removing unconstitutional items does not take amendments, but resolve and understanding

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Balanced budget amendment / No - Education

Why the Balanced Budget Amendments are false ideas. Done by premiere Constitutional lawyer. ... Share Balanced budget amendment / No.
Read more

Balanced budget amendment / No - Education - documents

Home; Education; Balanced budget amendment / No; Balanced budget amendment / No Dec 24, 2014 Education robert-powell
Read more

16th Amendment: IRS has no legal authority to tax your ...

16th Amendment: IRS has no legal ... budget be balanced on ... voted for the 16th Amendment, then there is absolutely no ...
Read more

Federal government need only to look to Virginia for ...

Moving forward on a balanced budget amendment is ... Republican candidates now hold a nine ... And your poll data has what to do with the budget? Nada ...
Read more

This Country Defaulted Long Ago - The Burning Platform

THIS COUNTRY DEFAULTED LONG AGO ... by voting for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution ... No facts to dispute my article. Nothing. Nada.
Read more

16th Amendment: the original Buffett Rule - RenewAmerica

... and takes up nine ... No longer would the federal budget be balanced on ... for the 16th Amendment, then there is absolutely no ...
Read more

This Week in OtherWords: April 9, 2014

This Week in OtherWords: April 9, 2014. ... De nada, you are welcome… ... notes or establishing a balanced budget amendment are ploys by banks to ...
Read more

CPD: October 9, 1996 Debate Transcript

October 9, 1996 Debate Transcript. ... We have a balanced budget plan that has targeted ... Just say that area qualifies for no Capital Gains Tax, zero, nada.
Read more

Daniel J. Mitchell Articles - Political Columnist ...

He also served on the 1988 Bush/Quayle transition team and was Director of Tax and Budget Policy for Citizens for a Sound Economy.
Read more