Constitutional convention | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    We hear a lot of folks pressing for a change in the Constitution to incorporate a "Balanced Budget Amendment". The argument is based on the belief that such an amendment would force the Congress to rein its profligate spending habits. It certainly sounds like a winner. If it could achieve that lofty goal, it would certainly be worthwhile.

    Additionally, provision for some kind of "line item veto" to go along with the "Balanced Budget" might not be such a bad idea.

    Likewise, it might not be such a bad idea to remove any language concerning "general welfare" from the text of the constitution. There are those who look upon the "general welfare" language in the constitution as "apple pie and motherhood" verbiage rather than a mandate or prohibition. And yet general welfare is what congress seems to hang their hat on when they enact laws that frequently would otherwise be outside the specific delegations contained in the Constitution. The responsibilities of the central government need to be more clearly stipulated and severely limited.

    The most widely heard argument against such constitutional amendments is that it will take several years to get enacted, so it would not be of much use in solving problems at hand such as reducing our deficits or our debt (two different things in case you weren't paying attention). That is the same argument that has been used against the proposition that we need to increase our drilling for oil. The argument is that it would take several years for any "new" oil to hit the market so it is not a solution to an immediate shortage or a spike in the price of crude. It has been used time after time (at least since 1974 as I recall).. It worked then and it seems to have continued to work. Apparently no one has focused on the fact that if we don't start drilling, we will never be able to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. (Duh) It would seem that the only oil we like is the Brazilian off-shore oil in which George Soros is reputed to be invested. That would be the oil that the Anointed One said that he looks forward to buying (no mention of Soros). (At least that's what he said - which may or may not mean anything.) The same thing applies to a constitutional amendment as applies to drilling for oil. It may take a while but it will never happen if we don't start. So why don't we get busy?? What is really interesting is that we hear the Anointed One bragging that our oil and gas production is higher than it has ever been, in an overt effort to take credit for it. The truth of the matter is that virtually all the production increases occurring since the Anointed One has been our ruler have been on private land. The government has done nothing but make it more difficult to drill on government land.

    And while we are a it, it probably wouldn't be such a bad idea to look very hard at the 17th amendment with an eye toward reverting back to the original way of selecting Senators. (In the beginning they were appointed by the legislature of each sate.) That would surely result in "term limits" without having to enact so called term limits. But maybe we should do it anyway. So why don't we just go ahead and add an amendment addressing "term limits". One six year term for the Senate and two, two-year terms for the House. That way virtually no one would be there long enough to learn to steal or do a lot of other distasteful things they tend to do (like get hooked by lobbyists or compromise their wedding vows) after they "learn the ropes".

    If we do decide to amend the Constitution, there remains one problem that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, it is how amazingly clever the congress can be when it comes to figuring out a way around any restrictions on them. Just as they have countless other times, it seems likely they would figure out a way around such a constitutional provision just as soon as it looked like it was going to "cramp their style". The point is that we need to lock this notion down so tight that it cannot be circumvented without a very high percentage of both houses of Congress consenting to it (in a roll call vote) - and maybe two thirds of the states as well. It is certainly too bad that the Congress isn't so clever when it comes to addressing American problems (as opposed to restrictions on congressional profligacy). If they were as good at addressing the country's problems, we would never have found ourselves in our current situation (i.e. unconscionable levels of debt and deficit spending as far as we can see).

    With Harry Reid at the helm of the Senate, there would seem to be a zero chance of Congress (i.e. 2/3 of each house) agreeing to call a constitutional convention. It will more likely have to be the legislatures of 2/3 of the states to call such a convention in accordance with Article V of the constitution. That would be a first - but then there is a first time for everything. Actually, in view of the usurpation of congressional duties and prerogatives, which have been visited on the Congress (and thereby the country) by the Anointed One, his spear carriers, and the rest of his administration, it would seem to be time to reassert their rightful place in the Republic. This would certainly be an attention getter for the Administration. (Maybe!!)

    And, by the way, speaking of Harry Reid, do you suppose the reason for his apparent difficulty reading the talking points prepared for him by his staff would indicate that he is a product of Nevada schools?? Reportedly, Nevada has the lowest High School graduation rate in the nation. To see the Las Vegas Sun report, click here.

    D'ya Think??