quote:

In an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball Monday evening, tenther Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) admitted that he is using the threat of a catastrophic default to extort the nation into rewriting the Constitution to force a permanent era of conservative governance:

quote:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: How many days do you think we have, on the outside, to get this debt ceiling through before we have a problem? How many days?

LEE: I don’t know, maybe ten days.

MATTHEWS: Okay, in ten days you want to change the United States Constitution by two-thirds vote in both houses? That’s what you’re demanding.

LEE: Yes. If possible we can’t change the Constitution just in Congress but we can submit it to the states. Let the states fight it out.

MATTHEWS: And you think you’re being reasonable by saying you want a two-thirds vote in the House, which is Republican, and in the Senate which is Democrat. You want the Democratic Senate, by a two-thirds vote, to pass a constitutional amendment or you want the house to come down?

LEE: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying and I’ve been saying this for six months.

Lee’s proposed amendment makes it functionally impossible to raise taxes by imposing a two-thirds supermajority requirement — a provision closely modeled after the California anti-tax amendment that blew up that state’s finances. It would also require America to return to 1966 spending levels — spending cuts that are so steep they would have made every single one of Ronald Reagan’s budgets unconstitutional.

If Lee’s proposed cuts were imposed across the federal budget, every single senior would lose one quarter of their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and that’s just the beginning.

Because Lee wants to write these draconian cuts into the Constitution, the People will lose their power to overrule these cuts by electing different leaders.

So Lee wants to rewrite our Constitution to that the American people must always live under conservative governance, regardless of who they elect, and he’s got a simple plan to force his colleagues in Congress to make this happen. That’s a mighty nice economy we’ve got here, it would be a shame if Mike Lee had to break it.

quote:

This is like trying to fight against a suicide bomber. It is hopeless. If the opponent will not listen to reason, and does not care what the outcome of his/her actions might be, and acts only according to ideological beliefs, then what chance does one have to convince or defeat him/her?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Why create more Amendments when the Government doesn't bother obeying the ones that we have?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So, I take it you are against a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So, I take it you are against a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Why was that not enacted when Bush was running two wars off the books....How would we have bankrolled WWII were the administration of FDR operating under such an amendment ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So most of these proposals recognize right up front that they are pure lunacy and need to come with trap door outs?

quote:

Than why amend the damm constitution....are there any other amendments that come with exceptions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So, I take it you are against a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Yes ,and vehemently so....no responsible government would commit itself to such restrictive lunacy.

Balanced-budget provisions have been added to the constitutions of most U.S. states, the Basic Law of Germany and the Swiss Constitution. It is often proposed that a balanced-budget rule be added to the national United States Constitution. Most balanced-budget provisions make an exception for times of war or national emergency, or allow the legislature to suspend the rule by a supermajority vote.

...

Every US state other than Vermont has some form of balanced budget amendment; the precise form varies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Than why amend the damm constitution....?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So, I take it you are against a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So, I take it you are against a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Firm