Why the Balanced Budget Amendments are false ideas. Done by premiere Constitutional lawyer. Read and understand the devious and or mis-understood reasons why attempts to amend the Constitution are dangerous to your health and treasure.

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
&
the fight
against
“Anything changed is no
longer the same”

2. Q: Doesn’t our Constitution already provide for
controlling federal spending?
A: Yes. It lists the purposes for which Congress may spend money.
Spending is limited by the “enumerated powers” listed in the
Constitution:
• If it’s on the list of powers delegated to Congress or the President,
Congress may lawfully appropriate funds for it. Read the Constitution
and highlight the delegated powers – then you will know what Congress
may lawfully spend money on.
• If it’s not listed, Congress may not lawfully spend money on it.

3. Q: What is the connection between the Oath of
office (Art. VI, cl. 3) and federal spending?
A: All federal and State officials take an Oath to support the federal
Constitution. The Constitution lists what Congress may lawfully spend
money on. When people in Congress spend money on objects not listed
in the Constitution; and when State officials accept federal funds for
objects not listed (race to the top, common core, etc.) they violate their
Oath to support the Constitution.

4. Q: ARE THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS OF
EDUCATION, AGRICULTURE, LABOR, ENERGY,
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH &
HUMAN SERVICES, DHS, ETC., ETC.,
CONSTITUTIONAL?
NOPE! NADA!
NINE!
Power over education, agriculture, labor relations, energy, etc., etc., was
NOWHERE in the Constitution delegated to the federal government.
Those powers were reserved by the States or the People.
DHS – a national police force under the President’s control – is becoming
our version of the East German STASI. Yet the States colluded with the feds
in nationalizing law enforcement because they wanted the federal funds
and military equipment.

5. Q: HOW DID WE GET A NATIONAL DEBT OF
OVER $17 TRILLION, PLUS TRILLIONS MORE IN
UNFUNDED LIABILITIES?
A: Congress spent on objects for which it has no constitutional authority, such
as teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly, bailouts of private
businesses, welfare handouts, farming programs, education schemes, and
grants paid to States to bribe them into implementing unconstitutional federal
programs. It was the
unconstitutional spending
which gave us this crushing debt.
Pssssst! This is divide and conquer, and many call this:
“Pork barrel Spending”
“this is buying the vote”

6. Q: THE 10TH AMENDMENT SAYS ALL
POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION ARE
RESERVED TO THE STATES OR TO THE PEOPLE.
A: The States sold them to the federal government. The States have
become administrative subdivisions of the federal government, and
their aim is to siphon as much money as possible from the federal
government. Research into who (party majority) voted for these issues in
the past, will assist your political understanding.
Any child knows, this was folly.
With the rupees comes the rulesWith the shekels comes the stickWith the mites comes the mightyWell, you get the idea. Economic slavery

7. Q: WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING?
A: We must eliminate pork. We must systematically dismantle unconstitutional
federal departments & agencies. Except that the Department of Education
should be shut down, and its bureaucrats sent home, by this Friday at 5:00 p.m.
All these functions must be restored to The States or The People.
Editor: As a bit of history, much of the challenge we face came about in the late 1920’s and
1930’s with verbal manipulation. This is overt in todays political climate.
In the case of education, Socialized Education, United Nations UNESCO education
and now Common Core are destroying generations of young peoples critical abilities---See:
Crimes against Humanity: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/27938724

8. Q: WHY WON’T A BBA FIX OUR DEBT PROBLEM?
( BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT )
A: They don’t address the cause of the problem: Congress spends where they have no constitutional
authority to spend.The BBAs don’t eliminate the unconstitutional spending; and they place no limits on the
amount of the unconstitutional spending
Q: Is a BBA harmful?
A: Yes. All versions of the BBA legalize spending which is now illegal and unconstitutional as outside the
scope of powers delegated to Congress or the President.
Q: Would a BBA fundamentally transform our Constitution?
A: Yes. All versions of the BBA amend out the enumerated powers limitations on the federal government
and transform the federal government into one of general & unlimited powers where the feds may spend
money on whatever they want as long as they don’t exceed the spending limits “imposed” by the BBA.
Q: So a BBA changes the constitutional criterion for spending?
A: Yes! All versions of the BBA ( balanced Budget Amendment ) change the criterion from:
• WHAT Congress spends money on (it must be an enumerated power), to
• A LIMIT on total spending where Congress can spend money on whatever they want.

9. Q: HOW ARE SPENDING LIMITS IN THE VARIOUS
VERSIONS OF THE BBA SET?
A: • by the amount they take from us in taxes, or
• by a certain percentage of the GDP, ( Gross Domestic Product ) or
• by the additional amounts they borrow to finance their spending.
Editors note:
Like addicted gamblers, this will not stop until the objects
are removed ( Agencies ) and Constitution followed

10. Q: CAN THESE LIMITS ON SPENDING BE RAISED?
A: Yes! In most versions of the BBA, Congress can vote to raise the spending
limit (just as they vote every few months to raise the debt limit). In the version
of the BBA by Nick Dranias and “Compact for America”, Congress and at least
26 States can vote at any time to raise the spending limit.
Not only do BBAs fail to address the cause of the problem (Congress spending
on unconstitutional objects); none of them limit the amount of Congress’
spending because the spending limits can be raised whenever they want to
raise them.
So! Just as Congress votes every few months to raise the debt ceiling; they can
vote whenever they want to raise the spending limit.

11. Q: WHAT OF MARK LEVIN’S AMENDMENT “TO
LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING” (PAGE 73 OF HIS
BOOK)?
A: Levin’s amendment makes lawful the spending which is now
unconstitutional. And his amendment does nothing to control spending:
• Levin substitutes a “budget” [which permits spending on whatever people in
the federal government want[1] for the enumerated powers listed in the
Constitution; and,
• While it pretends to limit spending to income, it actually permits Congress to
suspend the spending limit and to continue to raise the national debt limit.
So! Like all other BBAs, Levin’s legalizes the present unconstitutional spending
and does nothing to curb spending. It legalizes the status quo.

12. Q: WHAT ABOUT RANDY BARNETT’S
VERSION OF A BBA?
A: Randy Barnett, law professor, redefines “unbalanced budget” to mean a
budget where the national debt is greater than it was the previous year.
[Yes, you read that right.]
Barnett’s amendment doesn’t address the unconstitutional spending which
caused the massive debt. And it delegates sweeping new powers to the
President to stop funding anything he doesn’t want funded. E.g., it permits him
to ban appropriations authorized by the Constitution, such as all funding for our
military (which is authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 11-14).

13. Q: WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF
VERSIONS OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT?
A: The sole purpose is to remove the enumerated powers limitations on the
federal government and give it general & unlimited powers. Remember the all
important “we have a crisis to fix“ Government mantra. Total mis-information.
For more information on various versions of the BBA see:
1- Balancing the Budget? Or Adding A National Sales Tax To The Income Tax?
2- Why the balanced budget amendment is a hoax and a deadly trap
3- Why the balanced budget amendment is the worst idea ever
These three cogent dissertations are on PubliusHuldah site.

14. ENDNOTES:
1. The federal government didn’t have a budget until the Budget Act of 1921, which
purported to
grant budget making power (taxes & appropriations) to the President.
The Budget Act is unconstitutional. Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, grants to Congress Power to
lay and collect Taxes; and Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to Congress Power
to make appropriations:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures
of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
Before the Budget Act of 1921, Congress made appropriations for items listed in the
Constitution as the need arose; determined the taxes, and kept records of both.

15. IN CONCLUSION
The Constitution is not the problem, changing it is!
The framers of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, were unique in the History of
the world, and had all seen Repression of many kinds.Their understanding of
other countries benefits and failings manifested in the Documents of our
Countries founding.
Attempts to weaken these most valuable documents began not long after the
ink dried. In discussing only one as example:
When Senators from the States became elected by majority vote, instead of
being chosen and controlled by the States various Legislatures, the floodgates
opened to what we have today in our present Government operations.
Accountability was lost. That single step, to fix a non-crisis - misunderstood by
the public, but well understood by the amendment proponents, was only one
step. This process is called:
“Change within the Form”
The Balanced Budget Amends-- On the other hand removing unconstitutional
items does not take amendments, but resolve and understanding