The Right Scoop
How can a "Budget Amendment" become law if there is "No Budget", only a "Continuing Resolution"?
How can a "Budget Amendment" become law if there is "No Budget", only a "Continuing Resolution"?
The House would have been smarter to vote on the balanced budget amendment proposal as a separate issue. The present legislation as it is will be defeated in the Senate, which would include the amendment proposal. Mr. Levin is absolutely correct though. The American people should DEMAND from their state legislatures to call for a Constitutional convention to enact the balanced budget amendment. Obama cannot stop that should a convention be called. One other thing. A balanced budget amendment MUST NOT preclude Congress from appropriating money for contingencies such as natural disaster, economic instability, or most importantly, issues that threaten our national security.
So how / what can we do to make this go through the Senate. It seems that the few gains we get always get blocked at the Senate level. Calls, emails don't seem to have any affect on at least half of them. They have a plan to steal this country from us and they are not going to stop. Is this where we go to DC and demand they follow the peoples will?
So how / what can we do to make this go through the Senate. It seems that the few gains we get always get blocked at the Senate level. Calls, emails don't seem to have any affect on at least half of them. They have a plan to steal this country from us and they are not going to stop. Is this where we go to DC and demand they follow the peoples will?
Where are the brilliant, ivy league Constitutional Law Professors that know Obama is illegal, a criminal, has violated the Constitution many times, has commited both Perjury and Fraud, and should be removed right now from office?
I just discounted IVY LEAGUE Education Establishments in Law to sub standard rating.
Thank you Mark for bringing it to the fore and also btw thanks "nesta" --- we now all know we have something for which to hope it changes: that is, a proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution ... to lock-in the requirement for a POTUS to plan ahead using the age-old budget architecture... Mark you are GREAT at bringing the best and the worst out so that it can be examined. A true scholar and American you are!!!!!!!
Thank you Mark for bringing it to the fore and also btw thanks "nesta" --- we now all know we have something for which to hope it changes: that is, a proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution ... to lock-in the requirement for a POTUS to plan ahead using the age-old budget architecture... Mark you are GREAT at bringing the best and the worst out so that it can be examined. A true scholar and American you are!!!!!!!
Thank you Mark for bringing it to the fore and also btw thanks "nesta" --- we now all know we have something for which to hope it changes: that is, a proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution ... to lock-in the requirement for a POTUS to plan ahead using the age-old budget architecture... Mark you are GREAT at bringing the best and the worst out so that it can be examined. A true scholar and American you are!!!!!!!
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2560
The bill doesn't contain a Constitutional amendment, however it does refer to one. The balance aspect of the bill requires that a separate piece of legislation, which does consist of a Constitutional amendment, be submitted to the states. However, the kicker here, the part that Mr. Levin fails so sadly to understand, is that this requirement is not the Constitutional amendment. It is simply a bill requiring that a Constitutional amendment be presented to the states. As a bill, it can be vetoed by the President. Basically the authors of HR 2560 are attempting an end run around the constitutional process. Instead of simply putting the amendment up for a vote in the House and Senate, garnering the necessary votes, and then sending it to the states for ratification, they are requiring the amendment to be presented to the states as a part of the cost of raising the debt limit. That, in itself, does not follow the spirit of the Constitution.
Obama can veto the HR Bill 2560 called "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act". This article's author is an idiot for suggesting that he cannot.
The Balanced Budget Amendment is something else entirely and it has no chance of passing the Senate, nor would it have any chance of making it through the states.
Who cares? Nobody with even half a brain wants a balanced budget amendment. It will never pass the senate and if it did it wouldn't pass 38 states. Our founders intended for our government to be able to borrow money when it was necessary. Tearing up all your credit cards and reducing the amount you can borrow to zero is a fiscally irresponsible action.
Which would be why I said "attributed to", however by their own writings the founders clearly understood the effects of power on men and the fallibility of man.
I didn't draw the connection from another's analysis of the bill. I read the bill. The only amendment proposed in the bill is to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and restricts Congress from passing any budget that requires expenditures in excess of expected revenues. There is no Constitutional amendment proposed in HR 2560.
Obama didn't say he would veto the amendment. He said he would veto the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance Act HR 2560 (new window)
The bill is not an amendment. It does not contain the text of ANY balanced budget amendment. It states that the debt limit will be raised when a separate amendment passes both houses and is passed to the states. Thus, he CAN veto this bill which ties raising the debt limit to the passage of said amendment...
Mark Levin is f#@k-tard and so are all the people who agree with him. Why don't you all go live in Iraq and Afghanistan where you don't mind all your hard earned tax dollars being spent (and misplaced to the tune of 9 billion), f#@king Arab loving traitors!
OMG, get a freaking hobby, its all part of a catchy bumper sticker slogan not an actual bill, if it would pass the amendment wouldnt be part of what comes to his desk but it would sound really stupid if he said "I will veto the parts of Cut,Cap and Balance that, you know the cut and cap parts"
Accept its not a gaffe. The bill itself is not the proposed amendment. So its really Levin who is lying here.
2/3 of both houses can't agree on what time to grab lunch, let alone something this major. This amendment has zero chance.
He never said he would veto the amendment. He said he would veto the bill titled
"Cut, Cap, and Balance Act HR 2560". This bill has language in it that requires the passage of a balanced budget amendment proposal before the debt ceiling can be raised. The bill itself is not an amendment proposal.
He can absolutely veto that bill.
That might be applicable if the legislation in question was an amendment to the Constitution. It isn't. It is a proposed amendment to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Thank you Mark for bringing it to the fore and also btw thanks "nesta" --- we now all know we have something for which to hope it changes: that is, a proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution ... to lock-in the requirement for a POTUS to plan ahead using the age-old budget architecture... Mark you are GREAT at bringing the best and the worst out so that it can be examined. A true scholar and American you are!!!!!!!
No, Mr. Levin, you are the one who fails to understand the legislative process. This legislation is not an amendment to the Constitution. It is an amendment to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. As such it is still legislation that will need to be signed or vetoed by the President.
There is another option, it is known as a "convention to amend the Constitution" and it completely circumvents the Federal government, it is mentioned in the Constitution and it is called by the people of the several states. In such a convention the amendment proceeds from the convention directly to the states and if approved by two thirds of the states it becomes law as an amendment to the Constitution.
The two-thirds part is only to propose the amendment. Two-thirds of the States' legislatures need to pass a resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't necessarily circumvent the Congress; it merely states that the States called forth for the amendment (and thus prevents Congress from voting it down). Now Congress at that time would be REQUIRED to put forth an amendment to the States. It still requires three-fourths (currently 38) of the States ratifying the amendment for it to become a part of the Constitution.
Yes you are correct it's 3/4's to ratify, but it does "bypass" the need to fight it through Congress as they have no choice but to pass it on to the States for ratification. The 2/3's is required to move it from the convention and on to the ratification process.
Yes you are correct it's 3/4's to ratify, but it does "bypass" the need to fight it through Congress as they have no choice but to pass it on to the States for ratification. The 2/3's is required to move it from the convention and on to the ratification process.
"Cut, Cap, and Balance bill" Not a Constitutional Amendment but just a bill. Talk about the wrong scoop.
OH look!! a NEWly created MINISTRY OF TRUTH OBAMA TROLL!!!
15 post's total. WOW!! LOL!! AND original material too!! (sarc.)
Hey zr,.. say hi to Jesse Lee and Dan Pfeiffer for me!!!
ok. taged this one. Don't need to tag it again."-)
The only thing wrong is that you didn't actually comprehend when you read what Scoop wrote.
I would remind you of a quote attributed to one Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of government they had given to the people, to which he is said to have replied, "A republic,if you can keep it". I don't believe the founders were under any illusions about the nature of man and the effects of power on that nature.
I would remind you of a quote attributed to one Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of government they had given to the people, to which he is said to have replied, "A republic,if you can keep it". I don't believe the founders were under any illusions about the nature of man and the effects of power on that nature.
I think Obama can veto the current bill, the amendment has not yet been proposed. So either someone misunderstood Levin's statement, or Levin misspoke (please tell me he's not going crazy too!)
Someone smarter than me pointed this out...
Sorry Levin, Obama didn't say he would veto the amendment. He said he would veto the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance Act HR 2560 (new window)
The bill is not an amendment. It does not contain the text of ANY balanced budget amendment. It states that the debt limit will be raised when a separate amendment passes both houses and is passed to the states. Thus, he CAN veto this bill which ties raising the debt limit to the passage of said amendment.
Someone smarter than me pointed this out...
Sorry Levin, Obama didn't say he would veto the amendment. He said he would veto the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance Act HR 2560 (new window)
The bill is not an amendment. It does not contain the text of ANY balanced budget amendment. It states that the debt limit will be raised when a separate amendment passes both houses and is passed to the states. Thus, he CAN veto this bill which ties raising the debt limit to the passage of said amendment.
Sorry Levin, Obama didn't say he would veto the amendment. He said he would veto the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance Act HR 2560 (new window)
The bill is not an amendment. It does not contain the text of ANY balanced budget amendment. It states that the debt limit will be raised when a separate amendment passes both houses and is passed to the states. Thus, he CAN veto this bill which ties raising the debt limit to the passage of said amendment...
I've seen it called a "Plan" on several sites. Why are you suggesting it is an amendment?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/19/138501841/cut-cap-and-balance-heads-to-house-vote
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-threatens-veto-cut-cap-balance-163733918.html
After realizing his mistake, Obama threatened instead to stomp his feet and yell really loud if the amendment passes both the House and Senate.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.