Resolution Seeking Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Fails
Just three days after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis visited Montana urging lawmakers to pass a resolution asking for a Constitutional Convention in order to craft a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Montana Senators shot down the proposal.
Senate Joint Resolution 4 sought a convention of the states for the “sole purpose” of proposing the balanced budget amendment. The resolution saw a 5-4 vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, but was indefinitely postponed on the Senate Floor on March 27 after failing to pass the chamber 23-27.
The Senate spent more than an hour debating the measure on the floor before voting it down.
“I rise in support of SJ 4 because it represents the only chance the Montana Legislature has to take action in the fight to prevent Congress from bankrupting America,” Senator Mark Noland, R-Bigfork, said, introducing the measure on the floor. “There are good people on both sides of this debate, but the other side offers no solution, only their opposition.”
Making an impassioned speech about the need to reign in Congressional spending and the national debt, Noland said it wouldn’t be long before the country’s “interest payments will spiral out of control, until we enter what we call a doom loop.”
Some opponents spoke about their worry that calling a convention of the states specifically to propose a single amendment wasn’t possible — it could open a can of worms and allow any proposed changes to the Constitution to be debated, including stripping out existing rights.
“We control our delegates, maybe, but we can’t control the delegates from the other 49 states,” Senator Bob Phalen, R-Glendive, said. “There are too many enemies of our country, and of our Constitution, that would be the delegates. Their goal will not be the same as ours.”
But proponents pushed back by reminding lawmakers that any proposed changes to the Constitution would still have to be ratified by a super-majority of state legislatures.
“If they come in there and want to do a little monkey business and strip out the Second Amendment, or other amendments, it still needs 38 states to ratify what they’ve done,” Senator Greg Hertz, R-Polson, said. “And if they can, then our country is really, really in trouble if we got 38 states that really want to throw out most of our Constitution.”
Despite the impassioned pleas from many Republican legislators, proponents were unable to swing a majority of lawmakers in favor of the legislation.
DeSantis and Governor Gianforte had held a lunchtime discussion with lawmakers and a joint press conference a few days before, touting the need to reign in spending in Washington, D.C., and pointing out that 49 of the 50 states are required to balance their budgets.
“In Washington, they’ve been spending like drunken sailors, and that’s not what our founding fathers envisioned,” Gianforte said during the press conference. “We need to change — and fast — to prevent our children and grandchildren from inheriting this mess that they’ve created. As you know, there is no constitutional limit on congressional borrowing. It’s up to Congress to police itself.”
DeSantis said that 27 states, including Florida, had already passed resolutions calling for a balanced budget amendment, with 34 needed to enact the convention.
By Micah Drew for the Daily Montanan
My Statement on our 17th Amendment IF we really want to fix the problems.
We are an "equal representation" government. Prior to the 17th Amendment and in regard to congress, the people were represented by the U.S. House because they got to elect them; the U.S. Senate was responsible to the STATES because they got to select them.
After the 17th Amendment, the people got to choose both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, leaving STATE representation absent. This allowed congress to pass along many unfunded mandates, telling the STATES that they have to foot the bill for whatever congress chooses to pass, even without proper funding to go along with congress' pet projects. Had our STATES had a voice in decisions made by congress, we would have less mandates or threats of non-funding to schools. I doubt we would have "No Child Left Behind" or the federally mandated 55 MPH speed limit of a few years ago. There are hundreds and hundreds of these examples.
Congress has an ever growing power over the STATES and away from being controlled by the STATE through the people. Instead, as was initially intended, the people need to have power over congress. Logic dictates that the people elect members of the U.S. House. Logic also follows that STATE legislatures be able to select members of the U.S, Senate.
One of the primary reasons we have both a U.S. House and a U.S. Senate is so that both the people and the STATE can be represented in congress. The 17th Amendment changed this whole "equal representation" idea. It blew it away. It contributes to the violation of Article I, section 8 of our constitution.
Consider: Would the people approve a federal budget that is now over $36 Trillion in debt, and growing daily – with no end in sight?
Would the people put up with a Sen. Jon Tester voting for open borders – except only during his own campaign season?
Would the people tolerate passing continuing resolutions as a routine method of financing the federal government?
Would the people demand that our borders be closed according to law?
Would the people put up with the hiring of another 88,000 IRS agents?
Montana pays its bills, there is NO reason that the federal government cannot do the same.
Would the Senate put up with two attempted assassinations of a former president with essentially no answers from the Secret Service after this length of time?
Would we have ever even had the Roe vs Wade federal issue?
The recent campaign for Senate in MT involved two people, both spending outrageous sums of money to get elected. If the position was subject to recall by the STATE legislature, would this ridiculous funding ever happen?
I can go on and on with the above list. I suspect so can you.
My amendment will restore the people's voice through their STATE legislatures and ultimately fix many, if not all the major problems we now face.
The main reason that congress doesn't deal with any of these things is that it has virtually no responsibility to the STATES. My “Amendment to the Amendment” below would put a senator on a moment's notice to our STATE legislatures. If a senator owes his job to a STATE legislature, would that senator be so willing to put up with another day of being a border town in the middle of our country? Restoring the voice of the STATES in congress is key to many, many things that have gone awry since the original 17th Amendment.
My amendment would allow a STATE legislature to call themselves into session, and send their senator packing on a moment's notice. It would restore the right of the PEOPLE'S STATE to be once again represented in congress.
My revised and/or proposed new 17th Amendment:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the state legislatures thereof; and each Senator shall have one vote and serve at the will of their state legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the legislature of said state shall call themselves into session in person, or online, to fill the vacancy. Should the legislatures reach a deadlock, after thirty (30) days the governor shall cast the deciding vote.
This amendment shall be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Russell Sias
Columbia Falls, MT
Food for thought!
My Position on an Art. V Convention
We must never forget how our blessed and inspired constitution came about. In a similar convention as this would be to officially adopt the Articles of Confederation, they tossed out the rules and created our constitution.
INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT THEY WERE ORGANIZED TO DO! DO NOT FORGET THIS FACT!!!
I can envision the very first motion of such a convention today to be: Now that we are finally organized, there are these other issues (besides balancing the budget or term limits) which we need to resolve as well. This would eliminate our Bill of Rights – just for starters.
I have always had an issue with the appointment process, and who gets appointed. Logic says to me that at least 2 members from each state should be in an Art. V convention, probably appointed by congress. That means at least 100 people. Notice that Art V DOES NOT say how these appointments are to be done, by the way. 100 members selected from the states would likely be the best case scenario, at least in my mind.
Suppose however these appointments were made based on our states electoral college numbers? This would simply eliminate ANY voice for states like UT or MT!
Even in my best case scenario, I keep asking, are there 100 people in this country ANYWHERE that you would trust not to make the first motion I mentioned above?
Bottom line, there are exactly three people in this entire country that I would trust with our constitution in an Art. V convention. That would be, ...me, myself, and I.
Now, if we want to appoint me, myself, and I, to be the sole members of the convention, fine, in this case, I (we) are all for it. I promise that I (we) will restrict the convention to JUST balancing the budget and getting rid of our 36 Trillion dollar indebtedness. We will promise to set aside our “special interests” and restrict ourselves to just the one issue of the budget that the callers of the convention actually claim to want. (Even though there is NOTHING in Art. V that prevents us from doing those other "little things" that we would like to do while in convention.)
We promise, and I think (maybe) that I can safely speak for the other two in this little group I have suggested. We are ready to serve!
Russell Sias
Columbia Falls, MT