Freedom Line Blog

The Des Moines Register reports:

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is endorsing a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution, saying it’s the only way to impose term limits on Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court and to require a balanced federal budget. . . .

. . . Rubio told reporters later he has been studying “very carefully” the Convention of States concept to amend the U.S. Constitution and that his former Senate colleague, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, is an advocate for the initiative.

“It is something we feel very positive about. I think it is the only way that you are ever going to get term limits, and the only way that you are ever going to get a balanced budget amendment,” Rubio added.

Asked if he had concerns about opening up the Constitution to a convention, Rubio remarked, “I think you would have to limit the convention, and that is what they are proposing: a very limited convention on specific delineated issues that they would talk about — like term limits and a balanced budget amendment.”

Approval from 34 states is required for a Convention of States to proceed, and any amendments would need to be ratified by 38 states to become part of the Constitution.

A few observations/words of caution:

• Although term limits have a certain populist appeal, they don’t really work. Term limits haven’t produced more “citizen legislators.” In fact, such laws have succeeded in empowering lobbyists and government employees. As Alan Greenblatt observed a decade ago in Governing magazine, “It shouldn’t come as a surprise that short-term legislators aren’t prone to engage in long-term thinking.” That’s about the long and short of it. Lawmakers may come and go, but special interests and bureaucrats are forever.

• The idea of term limiting U.S. Supreme Court justices is a popular one, which is exactly why it should give people pause. As David Harsanyi argued at The Federalist in a 2014 piece:

It is pretty clear, though, that through lifetime appointments, the Founders wanted to shield judges from the political pressures of the day. But an excellent byproduct of having ancient, long-serving justices is that they are far more likely to be impervious to . . . fleeting populist bugaboos and contemporary preferences . . . . This should be about the long game.

• A balanced budget amendment offers no guarantee of fiscal rectitude. For a good sense of how a balanced-budget amendment would work in practice, one need look no further than California.

• There is no real way to limit a constitutional convention. Remember, the Framers of the Constitution of 1787 were only sent to Philadelphia to fix the original Articles of Confederation. But James Madison had something quite different in mind. Sure, it worked out well the first time. But it is no mere exercise in nostalgia to say the Founding generation was far wiser (even when bitterly divided) than the vast majority of those who would pass for statesmen in our day. The point is, any Convention of the States is bound to take up questions beyond limiting legislative and judicial terms or balancing the federal budget. So let’s be careful what we wish for.

Sen. Rubio says he’s given this idea a great deal of thought. He might do well to spend some time with the original Federalist just the same.

In an interview with CFIF, Congressman Steven Palazzo (R-MS) discusses his proposed Constitutional Amendment (H.J. Res. 28) that, if passed and ratified, will effectively abolish ObamaCare’s mandate tax and permanently limit Congress’ power to impose taxes as  penalty simply for choosing not to purchase goods or services.

Listen to the interview here.

In an op-ed published today on Foxnews.com, CFIF’s Troy Senik makes the case for a Constitutional Amendment to force Congress to rein in excessive federal spending.  Such a Constitutional Amendment is being pushed as part of CFIF’s “One More Vote” project:

If, as expected, a new generation of economic conservatives join the ranks of the United States Congress in the wake of the upcoming midterm elections, they will face a momentous challenge: how to finally deliver on the promises of fiscal restraint that have so often eluded recent Republican majorities.

To do so, they will need to understand how past congressional failures have set us on the road to reckless spending and how dire the consequences will be if we don’t change paths soon.

In 1995, Congress came within inches of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.

In that moment, we stood on the precipice of long-term fiscal responsibility. But the amendment failed — by one vote.

Fast-forward to the present and it becomes obvious that the fateful decision not to discipline our spending habits has saddled the nation with an unsustainable economic burden. Since the Balance Budget Amendment failed, our national debt has climbed to more than $13 trillion.

By 2020, the total gross federal debt, including liabilities for Social Security and Medicare,– is anticipated to reach 122 percent of GDP. Even without factoring in entitlement obligations, this will translate to a debt burden of more than $170,000 for every American family. …

Senik goes on to note:

If this trend continues unbroken, the United States will find itself poised for the same kind of decline that has beset nations like Greece and states like California. But there’s still a limited window left for us to stave off disaster.

Any serious approach to our economic travails will have to tackle three issues simultaneously: the need for balanced budgets, the danger of tax increases during a time of recession and the prevention of an expansion of the nation’s debt load. The current national consensus for common-sense budget reforms provides leaders in Washington the impetus and the opportunity to address all three.

What’s needed is a Constitutional Amendment requiring 60 percent of the Senate and House of Representatives to vote in the affirmative for any piece of legislation that increases the debt ceiling, raises current taxes or imposes new taxes. The Constitutional Amendment should also require Congress to pass a balanced federal budget annually.

By embracing balanced budgets, these common-sense reforms embrace the legacy of the original Balanced Budget Amendment campaign of the mid-1990s. But they also recognize that balancing the federal ledger is a necessary, but not sufficient, step to getting our fiscal house in order.

Read Senik’s entire piece here.