Buffett's Five Minute Deficit Fix, Amendments and a Constitutional Convention

[Conley]

"I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45078444

One problem I see with this plan is that as a law we would need a crooked and corrupt Congress to pass it. I think it would need to be a little more complicated as well, with some elasticity built in. Term limits could be a wonderful thing. There are so many entrenched there only looking out for number one and forgetting they are there to serve the people. Congress is an honor not a lifetime ride on the gravy train.

Since Congress would never consider this as an Amendment, what about another process?

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

Could the American people lobby their state legislatures to get this done? Wouldn't it be something to have the states telling DC how to operate instead of the other way around? And the process would bypass the President completely.

[MMC]

3%.....of GDP its always been 15 % as far Back as the 50's. What the hell that won't work. I got one for Mr Geico Man.....how about pay your taxes and quite spending 1.6 million on attorney fees to help you find ways to hid more of that money. >

[Conley]

Right, 3% is too low. What about the other parts of it? Forget Buffett, he's irrelevant to the rest of it.

[MMC]

Right, 3% is too low. What about the other parts of it? Forget Buffett, he's irrelevant to the rest of it.

Problem I see is all the States won't go for it. But it is in the Constitution so it would be legal. Or a Call to Precedent!

[Conley]

Right, 3% is too low. What about the other parts of it? Forget Buffett, he's irrelevant to the rest of it.

Problem I see is all the States won't go for it. But it is in the Constitution so it would be legal. Or a Call to Precedent!

Well we would only need two thirds of the states. Many in the state governments already feel that the federal government is too powerful, so in that context they might be easier to convince. Still it may take something catastrophic before a Convention would be considered by many.

[MMC]

Right, 3% is too low. What about the other parts of it? Forget Buffett, he's irrelevant to the rest of it.

Problem I see is all the States won't go for it. But it is in the Constitution so it would be legal. Or a Call to Precedent!

Well we would only need two thirds of the states. Many in the state governments already feel that the federal government is too powerful, so in that context they might be easier to convince. Still it may take something catastrophic before a Convention would be considered by many.

Problem states would be NY, Cali, Ill, Mass, S.Carolina Iowa and New Hampshire.