The Text:
Section 1. For purposes of this article, the budget of the United States for any given fiscal year shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the debt of the United States held by the public at the close of such fiscal year is greater than the total amount of the debt of the United States held by the public at the close of the preceding fiscal year.
Section 2. If the budget of the United States is unbalanced for any given fiscal year, the President may separately approve, reduce, or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the legislative and judicial branches of the United States Government, and which is presented to the President during the next annual session of Congress.
Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to section 2 of this article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed under section 7 of Article I for bills disapproved by the President, separately reconsider those reduced or disapproved monetary amounts.
Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 5. This article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by Congress.
The Problem:
After a brief period of budget surpluses in the late 1990's, Congress returned to excessive deficits in this first decade of the twenty-first century. This mostly uninterrupted pattern of budget deficits are fueled by large-scale fear of tax hikes and congressional unwillingness to cut spending and pork, and it has become apparent that this is an institutional problem. The only constitutional check to control congressional-spending binges is the presidential veto, but it has proven too blunt and clumsy of an instrument. The item veto is a solution that has worked with some degree of effectiveness at the State level, but even its potential impact on budget discipline would be minimal without some sort of incentive built in for Congress to impose this needed discipline on its own.
The Explanation:
Rather than attempt to explain the need for this amendment, I'll defer to this excellent analysis offered by the CATO Institute.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Call Me Oedipus
The Virginia Tech shooting that transpired on Monday, April 16th 2007 is as tragic as any the Greek poets left us. A greater tragedy is the response it has evoked across the country. Blaming the availability of guns or the exposure to violence are the whipping boys of the demagogues crying out for quick action. The urge to 'do something' overwhelms society's psyche, and we search for solutions to the ever-present questions events like this one force us to face.
We have a need to make sense of the world. When a senseless thing happens such as a school shooting, we have no rational way to respond, so we respond irrationally.
Society asks rhetorical questions seeking answers to the unknown; "Why me?", "Why did this happen?", and others find their way to our lips. The questions that are the most telling, to me, are "What can we do to prevent this from happening again?" and "What drove this person to commit such a heinous act?" They are not the same question. The former asks us to focus on the symptom while the latter asks us to focus on the cause. Neither is easily answered and when our leaders are judged by the perception of action, they'll gravitate to the the easiest and quickest cure available. (aside- It's as if amputating the offending limb will cure the leprosy patient. It might but how many 'cures' will they withstand?)
We fear that which we can not control and thus we seek to control that which we fear using logic that would make Möbius proud. Real control, like over human-nature, is like unrefined gold ore; it's difficult to find, takes a lot of work to produce, and comes with a large price-tag. The appearance of control is like fools-gold; plentiful, cheap, and available right now.
Politicians become like snake-oil peddlers. They don't know or even care if their product will do what they claim, only that their marks believe it will. When we go looking for gold, maybe the sticker-shock convinces us to compromise, maybe we rationalize, "The nice guy gave me a deal and sold it to me for 10-cents on the dollar!". Whatever the reason, when we keep paying full-price for fools-gold, not only do we deserve what get, we'll never run out of people willing to separate us from our money.
How we respond is a great measure of the change engendered by society in itself.
We have a need to make sense of the world. When a senseless thing happens such as a school shooting, we have no rational way to respond, so we respond irrationally.
Society asks rhetorical questions seeking answers to the unknown; "Why me?", "Why did this happen?", and others find their way to our lips. The questions that are the most telling, to me, are "What can we do to prevent this from happening again?" and "What drove this person to commit such a heinous act?" They are not the same question. The former asks us to focus on the symptom while the latter asks us to focus on the cause. Neither is easily answered and when our leaders are judged by the perception of action, they'll gravitate to the the easiest and quickest cure available. (aside- It's as if amputating the offending limb will cure the leprosy patient. It might but how many 'cures' will they withstand?)
We fear that which we can not control and thus we seek to control that which we fear using logic that would make Möbius proud. Real control, like over human-nature, is like unrefined gold ore; it's difficult to find, takes a lot of work to produce, and comes with a large price-tag. The appearance of control is like fools-gold; plentiful, cheap, and available right now.
Politicians become like snake-oil peddlers. They don't know or even care if their product will do what they claim, only that their marks believe it will. When we go looking for gold, maybe the sticker-shock convinces us to compromise, maybe we rationalize, "The nice guy gave me a deal and sold it to me for 10-cents on the dollar!". Whatever the reason, when we keep paying full-price for fools-gold, not only do we deserve what get, we'll never run out of people willing to separate us from our money.
How we respond is a great measure of the change engendered by society in itself.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Congress vs. SCOTUS
...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...
--Preamble of the U.S. Constitution
It is possible that conflicting principles are embedded within the Constitution itself. In any given case, securing the blessings of liberty for both ourselves and future generations might be mutually exclusive. For example, today's economic growth potentially compromises tomorrow's environment. Or fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq sacrifices the freedom and lives of today's soldiers for the chance of a more peaceful world tomorrow.
The following are notes from a brainstorming session that Kelly and I had last week that started with thinking about the proper constitutional roles for Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and ended with the above observation (which is also the premise of our paper The Governance Imperative).
What of when SCOTUS is wrong? When SCOTUS invalidates a law but is wrong, no harm is done since Congress can repass it.
When SCOTUS uses wording from the Constitution, it's rulings are generally accepted.
When SCOTUS erects its own language and standards and inferred rights, even as "logical" extensions of constitutional principles, conflict ensues.
The Constitution values certain principles, which we have gleaned from the Preamble:
The purview of Congress is to make relative value judgments regarding these principles, balancing the importance and weight of each of these in the law-making process.
It is the role of the Supreme Court to oversee this balancing act, ensuring that Congress remains within the bounds of the constitutional application of governmental power (fairness).
When Congress or the Supreme Court allow these principles to get out of whack or outside of constitutional limits, society is plunged into the realm of the inhumane.
Some of the principles that Congress has to consider in this grand juggling act are, in some instances, diametrically opposed:
--Preamble of the U.S. Constitution
It is possible that conflicting principles are embedded within the Constitution itself. In any given case, securing the blessings of liberty for both ourselves and future generations might be mutually exclusive. For example, today's economic growth potentially compromises tomorrow's environment. Or fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq sacrifices the freedom and lives of today's soldiers for the chance of a more peaceful world tomorrow.
The following are notes from a brainstorming session that Kelly and I had last week that started with thinking about the proper constitutional roles for Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and ended with the above observation (which is also the premise of our paper The Governance Imperative).
What of when SCOTUS is wrong? When SCOTUS invalidates a law but is wrong, no harm is done since Congress can repass it.
When SCOTUS uses wording from the Constitution, it's rulings are generally accepted.
When SCOTUS erects its own language and standards and inferred rights, even as "logical" extensions of constitutional principles, conflict ensues.
The Constitution values certain principles, which we have gleaned from the Preamble:
- peace
- welfare
- liberty
- posterity
- justice
The purview of Congress is to make relative value judgments regarding these principles, balancing the importance and weight of each of these in the law-making process.
It is the role of the Supreme Court to oversee this balancing act, ensuring that Congress remains within the bounds of the constitutional application of governmental power (fairness).
When Congress or the Supreme Court allow these principles to get out of whack or outside of constitutional limits, society is plunged into the realm of the inhumane.
Some of the principles that Congress has to consider in this grand juggling act are, in some instances, diametrically opposed:
- safety vs. freedom
- posterity vs. liberty
- transcendence vs. immanence
The logical flaw of signing statements
If the Administration can choose how to interpret a law through issuing signing statements, there's no difference between this and the power to ignore existing laws that were in place before the President came into office. The fact that a law is in the process of being signed when the President declares his intent to ignore it, is irrelevant. If the President has the power to ignore this kind of law, he has the power to ignore laws that were in effect when he took office.
The part the executive branch plays in the constitutional balance of powers is in the need for any Administration to set priorities in the laws that it enforces. Resources are finite and must be rationed. The Clinton Administration put more importance on civil rights laws than the Bush Administration, which puts more emphasis on enforcing child pornography laws. But the constitutional charge of the President is to make sure all laws are faithfully administered; he has no power to ignore or interpret.
The part the executive branch plays in the constitutional balance of powers is in the need for any Administration to set priorities in the laws that it enforces. Resources are finite and must be rationed. The Clinton Administration put more importance on civil rights laws than the Bush Administration, which puts more emphasis on enforcing child pornography laws. But the constitutional charge of the President is to make sure all laws are faithfully administered; he has no power to ignore or interpret.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Limitations of the law
The other day, I was explaining to Craig why helmet and seatbelt laws rub me the wrong way. In terms of expressions of power, it's pretty minor and as a tool to shape behavior, it seems to work. It is one thing to allow health insurance companies to charge higher rates to those who choose to smoke. With seatbelt/helmet laws we've used the power of the state to enforce a preferred behavior. When asked why the State should care whether I wear a helmet, the response is basically that the State has to clean up the mess if I do something irresponsible. Does that mean that the State will eventually make eating poorly illegal? Think of all the health care costs that come from obesity. Where will it end? Legislating tooth brushing and flossing? That may seem silly, but it is an expression of a principle on the proper use of power.
Using the law to enforce a moral behavior, like wearing a helmet, rather than to prohibit an immoral act, like murder, is where we start to cross the line into the inappropriate use of governmental power.
Using the law to enforce a moral behavior, like wearing a helmet, rather than to prohibit an immoral act, like murder, is where we start to cross the line into the inappropriate use of governmental power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
