Gentlemen,
Please be advised, we will no longer accept less than full compliance with the supreme laws of our nation, unambiguously delineated in the Bill of Rights and limitations enumerated in the organic Constitution of record for these united States of America.
It is past time for consideration of a Balanced Budget Amendment with conditions included therein to explicitly exclude any multiple purpose proposals mingled with original budget bills or other bills impertinent to original budget bills emanating from budget committee resolutions or discretionary spending non-germane to or outside the fiscal restraints delineated in the budget itself. Pursuant to this policy, there should be no super-committee, sub-committee, or agency given authority to modify or re-write monetary policies nor increases to federal debt limits except by recorded votes of 2/3rd majority of the joint bodies of the Congress in regular session with 2/3rd minimum attendance of each house voting.
Pursuant to recent discussions regarding tax reform proposals, budget shortfalls and pending military spending sequestration due to current levels of revenues relative to Federal Debt limits, I would offer the following for review and consideration.
The "Automated Payment Transaction Tax" is a fully developed proposal for which details and references are provided at URL: http://www.apttax.com for public viewing and dissemination. The summary is brief, to the point and .PDF versions available for download at no cost. Note: This is not to be confused with “Fair‑Tax” or other "Flat‑Tax" proposals, nor is it similar in any way except its method of collection.
While perusing 2012 Federal Budget Resolutions and various mandates in Cut, Cap & Balance legislation, a couple of items surfaced that may be of interest in cutting spending without disturbing critical social safety nets and other necessary programs, one of which are the salaries of Executive Aids and Staff, e.g. "czars" which are unauthorized and have not been approved by normal process in the House or Senate. Note: I learned early in life from grandma that “turn-about is fair play.” Enough said?
Additionally, in lieu of cutting funds for critical infrastructure and readiness capabilities of our military, it would seem expedient to close and redistribute resources for numerous active military bases in foreign countries, while cutting salaries and pensions of the estimated 22 million domestic public sector (Federal) employees by as much as $10,000 / each, annually. The continuance of this policy would be to begin reducing this massive overhead by decommissioning bloated bureaucratic agencies and eliminating 100,000 public sector positions per month for the next 10 years (12 million total reduction), at a cost reduction of $1.2 trillion, annually. You can automatically see the potential net gains in revenue due to conversion of unnecessary government jobs to productive domestic workforce positions, creating a stimulus to the GDP.
I trust the above information is helpful, and agrees with your line of thinking relative to fiscal responsibility.
Thank you for considering my views.
Respectfully,
Robert William Butler Jr
Houston, TX 77086
Phone: (281) 973-6863
Fax: (901) 234-9961
Contact: robert.butler@vision4freedom.net
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been
used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a
two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on
to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of
some long outstanding amendments, such as the
27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for
the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called
by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to
propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states
to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route
has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles
about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it
would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must
be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of the states. There are two ways to do this. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be
passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of
the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the
states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st,
specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention
is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never
used)
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures
(never used)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other
times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in
the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion
known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point
is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in
Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
Note: The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
