Chuck Norris recently wrote an editorial in favor of an Article V Convention of the States to rewrite the Constitution. Or draft a new Constitution.
I don’t have to convince anyone of Washington’s runaway spending. Government 101 shows how skyrocketing national debt, deficits and expenditures have been amassing for decades. Electing differing political majorities has done little to curb the currency chaos from Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Washington’s out-of-control outlays remind me of the words of President Ronald Reagan, who said, “We could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money.”
But alas, there’s finally hope on the horizon to control the federal fiscal insanity by the states’ initiative to force a balanced budget amendment via an Article V constitutional convention.
A constitutional balanced budget amendment, or BBA, is not a new idea, and neither is the states’ push for such legislation. The first BBA was proposed in Congress more than 75 years ago, and the first resolution calling for an Article V convention in state legislatures was proposed more than 50 years ago.
There’s much more from Chuck and you can read his whole editorial at the link above. We are the last who want to take on Chuck Norris, but in this particular instance we just have to swallow hard and say to Chuck (and to Mark Levin), you are absolutely wrong.
First of all, Chuck seems to think that an Article V convention can be called and limited to the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment. It won’t be, a full rewrite will be on the table, and liberals can’t wait.
Next, let’s look at the impact of a BBA. The question is now now, nor has it ever been, should we balance the budget. We should. The question is how to do it. People who push a BBA seem to think that the adoption of a BBA will lead to a cut in spending. Anybody who believes that hasn’t been paying attention to the Congress acting on – or running from – minuscule cuts. The net result at the hands of the politicians who will be charged with writing the BBA will be two-fold. First, defense spending will be slashed to European levels, and second, we will “tax the rich.” No understanding of history will lead to any other conclusion.
Now, let’s look at the risk of putting the Constitution on the table for a rewrite.
There’s that pesky First Amendment .
Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done — amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech.
Then, there’s that “misinterpreted” Second Amendment .
During an appearance over the weekend on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison said he wishes Democrats would come out in opposition to the Second Amendment. Before the admission, Ellison listed off a number of “common sense” ways we can reduce “gun violence…”
You can say that they’ll never make those changes, but again, you’ve not been watching politics. Republicans are always happy to compromise with Democrats because they are driven to be bipartisan. The idea that Democrats should move to the right never occurs to them.
Just look at signature legislation that comes out of Congress and you’ll have an idea what the result of an Article V Convention would look like.
Our Constitution has 4,543 words. ObamaCare has 11,588,500 words and the regulations run about 30 times as many. That’s what we’ll get from an Article V Convention.
Sorry Chuck, you lose this one.