Rubio: Amend the U.S. Constitution

[cigaretteman]

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.

The Florida Republican began a two-day presidential campaign trip to Iowa on Tuesday. He was joined by U.S. Rep. Trent Gowdy, R-S.C., who praised Rubio as a principled conservative who can be trusted to protect national security and public safety. Gowdy has chaired a House investigation into a 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Rubio was repeatedly applauded as he criticized President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in his remarks during a town hall meeting attended by about 175 people at Rastrelli’s restaurant and events center here.

He contended that Democratic leaders on the left see America as a flawed country in need of reform and believe government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves. Those same people, he added, view the U.S. as “an arrogant global power” and believe that people who support traditional marriage are bigots, while favoring more money for government programs that often help people who refuse to work.

“This is a systematic effort to redefine America,” Rubio said.

Sam Lau, communications director with the Iowa Democratic Party, responded: "Like the rest of the GOP field, Rubio believes the very rich deserve huge tax breaks, that LGBT Iowans deserve fewer rights, and that our foreign policy should be based on fear-mongering and outdated ideas."

The senator vowed that if he’s elected president, he will immediately take a series of steps to reverse the direction of the federal government under Obama, including cancelling Obama’s executive orders, opposing Common Core educational standards, and supporting a constitutional Convention of States.



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.

Rubio got high marks after his appearance from several people in the audience.

“I was very impressed. I liked his message of economic liberty and improved freedoms and limiting regulations by the executive branch,” said Dustin Johnson, 33, a Clinton area farmer.

Karli Murrens, 21, of Davenport, a senior nursing student at St. Ambrose University, said she liked Rubio’s ideas about education and college, such as giving students academic credit for experience in the military and other fields.

“He is a great public speaker,” she said.

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/...5/12/29/rubio-amend-us-constitution/78039898/

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The US is an arrogant global power, even with if not especially with BHO in charge of it.

We repeatedly violate other nation's sovereignty and kill their civilians because we think there might be some terrorists there.

A constitutional convention of the states would be a waste of time. There is very little changes to the constitution that you could get 38 states to sign on to.

 

[22*43*51]

He contended that Democratic leaders on the left see America as a flawed country in need of reform and believe government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves. Those same people, he added, view the U.S. as “an arrogant global power” and believe that people who support traditional marriage are bigots, while favoring more money for government programs that often help people who refuse to work.

“This is a systematic effort to redefine America,” Rubio said.

 

[naturalmwa]

He contended that Democratic leaders on the left see America as a flawed country in need of reform and believe government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves.

Says the guy who wants to use government regulations to limit the rights of people to elect who they want and spend their money the way they want. No irony there at all. And call me more than a little skeptical that the guy who wants an extra trillion dollars for defence and a new fleet of submarines and bombers really wants to balance the budget. Much like Rubio, pander bears are cute.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Says the guy who wants to use government regulations to limit the rights of people to elect who they want and spend their money the way they want. No irony there at all. And call me more than a little skeptical that the guy who wants an extra trillion dollars for defence and a new fleet of submarines and bombers really wants to balance the budget. Much like Rubio, pander bears are cute.

That's pretty much what every Republican means by balancing the budget.

 

[naturalmwa]

That's pretty much what every Republican means by balancing the budget.

And that gets to the real reason balanced budget amendments are not a great idea. If we really need something, we can't use debt to finance it. Debt is a tool we shouldn't remove from our chest. One could make the case that purposely tieing the nation's hands behind our backs is tantamount to treason. Why doesn't Rubio trust Americans to make their own decision? It's almost like he sees America as a flawed country in need of reform and believes government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves.

 

[The Tradition]

And that gets to the real reason balanced budget amendments are not a great idea. If we really need something, we can't use debt to finance it. Debt is a tool we shouldn't remove from our chest. One could make the case that purposely tieing the nation's hands behind our backs is tantamount to treason. Why doesn't Rubio trust Americans to make their own decision? It's almost like he sees America as a flawed country in need of reform and believes government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves.

Having a "balanced budget" doesn't mean you can't have debt. Florida has a balanced budget amendment and it's a very good thing.

 

[cigaretteman]

Having a "balanced budget" doesn't mean you can't have debt. Florida has a balanced budget amendment and it's a very good thing.

Um, no it's not. It's one thing on the state level. It's quite another for a nation with its own sovereign currency. When someone compares the federal budget to a household or state budget, it simply displays their lack of understanding of international finance.

 

[cigaretteman]

Rubio said his first day in office would be aimed largely at undoing all that Democratic President Barack Obama has done over the last eight years — from a repeal of the federal health care reform act to canceling a nuclear power deal with Iran to rescinding his executive orders.

http://www.thegazette.com/subject/n...lan-for-first-day-in-the-white-house-20151229

Right, on your first day in office deprive millions of Americans of affordable health insurance while unilaterally pulling out of an international agreement, which will have no effect on the other signatories' continuing opening up of trade with Iran, and leave us without access to inspections. Sounds like a plan to me!

 

[The Tradition]

Um, no it's not. It's one thing on the state level. It's quite another for a nation with its own sovereign currency. When someone compares the federal budget to a household or state budget, it simply displays their lack of understanding of international finance.

Bullcrap. Whether you're talking about the household budget or the federal budget, making sure you have enough money coming in to cover what's going out is essential. If you don't have the money for something, you either do without, or you cut back somewhere else. EVERYBODY has to do this except the federal government because they're somehow different? GTFO.

 

[naturalmwa]

Bullcrap. Whether you're talking about the household budget or the federal budget, making sure you have enough money coming in to cover what's going out is essential. If you don't have the money for something, you either do without, or you cut back somewhere else. EVERYBODY has to do this except the federal government because they're somehow different? GTFO.

Of course they are different and that's a good thing for us. GTFO if you want to give up our American exceptionalism so that you can feel better. You emotional cons are a hoot, I'm going to get you voting D any day now.

 

[The Tradition]

Of course they are different and that's a good thing for us. GTFO if you want to give up our American exceptionalism so that you can feel better. You emotional cons are a hoot, I'm going to get you voting D any day now.

Spend, spend, spend. Pass last minute bills to increase the debt so we can continue to spend, spend, spend. Rinse and repeat. You don't see how this story ends?

 

[naturalmwa]

Spend, spend, spend. Pass last minute bills to increase the debt so we can continue to spend, spend, spend. Rinse and repeat. You don't see how this story ends?

I assume you will be voting the Clinton team back in office if this is your priority. That was the last fiscally responsible administration. Rubio has already told you he will break the bank on subs and bombers. Ready to vote D now?

 

[Titanhawk2]

Agree with term limits. The country is not best served by people spending 40 years in Congress

 

[The Tradition]

I assume you will be voting the Clinton team back in office if this is your priority. That was the last fiscally responsible administration. Rubio has already told you he will break the bank on subs and bombers. Ready to vote D now?

Clinton had nothing to do with that. Newt is the name you're looking for.

 

[pablow]

Spend, spend, spend. Pass last minute bills to increase the debt so we can continue to spend, spend, spend. Rinse and repeat. You don't see how this story ends?

We all know how the story ends. But some people are in serious denial about the bleak future of our country.

 

[naturalmwa]

Clinton had nothing to do with that. Newt is the name you're looking for.

The "Newt" role is already cast in congress. Now you need the Clinton magic to deliver the D vote and triangulate the death out of the liberals. A real conservative would want Clinton in office again.

 

[cigaretteman]

Agree with term limits. The country is not best served by people spending 40 years in Congress

And, as has been said over and over again, we already have them. They're called elections. Why should the voting public be denied the opportunity to return a popular and effective legislator to office if that's their intention? Why deprive congress of much needed experience and institutional memory simply for the sake of ensuring new membership?

 

[aflachawk]

I am against a constitutional convention. Every thing is up for grabs then and the libs would have a field day with all the lame crap they would propose

 

[The Tradition]

I am against a constitutional convention. Every thing is up for grabs then and the libs would have a field day with all the lame crap they would propose

But you need 38 states to ratify anything. The libs don't have anywhere near a majority of states, they just have most of the really populous ones.

 

[pablow]

I'd like a constitutional amendment that would reign in the power of federal agencies. Some have suggested an amendment that requires all federal agencies be sunsetted and thus must be reauthorized periodically by Congress. I'm in favor of this - these agencies are out of control.

I'm also in favor of an amendment to abolish birthright citizenship. [Before you yell at me for being mean, consider that the only non-hellhole countries that have this right are the USA and Canada. And we only have it because our Supreme Court is stupid]

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

And that gets to the real reason balanced budget amendments are not a great idea. If we really need something, we can't use debt to finance it. Debt is a tool we shouldn't remove from our chest. One could make the case that purposely tieing the nation's hands behind our backs is tantamount to treason. Why doesn't Rubio trust Americans to make their own decision? It's almost like he sees America as a flawed country in need of reform and believes government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves.

I can somewhat agree with this although I do think that it's a consistent problem in our country that when we have ideal times where we should probably be paying down on debt we are instead taking out more debt.

IMO we need a smaller military budget, not a bigger one.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

I'm struggling with what a balanced budget would even mean. How Does this work at the state level? It seems like either revenues have to equal expenses (eliminating any debt) OR you can just plug debt proceeds to even out your expenses....

 

[IACub]

Bullcrap. Whether you're talking about the household budget or the federal budget, making sure you have enough money coming in to cover what's going out is essential. If you don't have the money for something, you either do without, or you cut back somewhere else. EVERYBODY has to do this except the federal government because they're somehow different? GTFO.

You do realize that in this scenario no one could buy anything unless they could pay cash for it? Like a car or a house...

 

[The Tradition]

Are you people really this dense? The money you pay to service debts is included in your budget. Having a balanced budget doesn't mean you have no debt. It means you can pay for all the goods, services and INTEREST that you incur.

This reminds me of how people didn't understand the budget surplus during the Clinton years. People think we didn't have any national debt. That is incorrect, we still had mountains of national debt. We were just bringing more revenue in than expenses going out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

He contended that Democratic leaders on the left

[1] ...see America as a flawed country in need of reform and believe government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves.

[2] Those same people, he added, view the U.S. as “an arrogant global power”

[3] ...and believe that people who support traditional marriage are bigots,

[4] ...while favoring more money for government programs that often help people who refuse to work.

“This is a systematic effort to redefine America,” Rubio said.

Whereas Republican leaders on the right

[1] ...see America as a flawed country in need of reform and believe corporate control of government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves.

[2] Those same people view the U.S. as an insufficiently aggressive global power

[3] ...and believe that people who support gay marriage are sinners who should be denied or stripped of basic rights

[4] ...while favoring more tax breaks for the wealthy, more power for multinational corporation, and crippling the safety net and other important government programs.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

A constitutional convention of the states would be a waste of time. There is very little changes to the constitution that you could get 38 states to sign on to.

I'm not so sure.

Republicans control 33 state legislatures. ALEC will have a preferred package of corporate-approved amendments ready to roll - and those corporations will be many of the same ones who have contributed to the coffers of the state legislators.

Personally, I like the idea of a constitutional convention. But I'm afraid I wouldn't like the results with the deck stacked this way. And I'm also afraid that you are wrong, and the convention would produce results that would be ratified.

 

[The Tradition]

Whereas Republican leaders on the right

[1] ...see America as a flawed country in need of reform and believe corporate control of government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves.

[2] Those same people view the U.S. as an insufficiently aggressive global power

[3] ...and believe that people who support gay marriage are sinners who should be denied or stripped of basic rights

[4] ...while favoring more tax breaks for the wealthy, more power for multinational corporation, and crippling the safety net and other important government programs.

 

[naturalmwa]

This reminds me of how people didn't understand the budget surplus during the Clinton years. People think we didn't have any national debt. That is incorrect, we still had mountains of national debt. We were just bringing more revenue in than expenses going out.

Nobody credible ever thought this. Everyone thought it was just as you state. And by your definition it was a balanced budget. Will you be voting in that administrative team again?

 

[22*43*51]

[3] ...and believe that people who support gay marriage are sinners who should be denied or stripped of basic rights.

It is possible to be pro-traditional marriage and not be anti-gay.

 

[naturalmwa]

It is possible to be pro-traditional marriage and not be anti-gay.

It is, but most aren't. I'm pro traditional marriage and pro SSM. Most who say they are pro traditional marriage think other forms of marriage should be prevented. You can't be for preventing gay marriage and not be anti-gay.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Are you people really this dense? The money you pay to service debts is included in your budget. Having a balanced budget doesn't mean you have no debt. It means you can pay for all the goods, services and INTEREST that you incur.

What people mean when talking about balancing the national budget is being able to pay the bills before additional borrowing. If you have a balanced budget amendment, you don't get to say "we borrowed an additional trillion dollars, so we satisfied the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It is possible to be pro-traditional marriage and not be anti-gay.

Sure - if by that you mean someone really likes the idea of traditional marriage but is OK with letting gays marry, too. Probably plenty of people like that. But that's unremarkable - or ought to be unremarkable, don't you think?

 

[The Tradition]

What people mean when talking about balancing the national budget is being able to pay the bills before additional borrowing. If you have a balanced budget amendment, you don't get to say "we borrowed an additional trillion dollars, so we satisfied the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget."

That would depend on the wording of the amendment. Right now, they deal with that with the debt ceiling. Problem is, they keep raising the debt ceiling instead of not spending so much or finding new revenue sources. That game can't go on forever.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It is, but most aren't. I'm pro traditional marriage and pro SSM. Most who say they are pro traditional marriage think other forms of marriage should be prevented. You can't be for preventing gay marriage and not be anti-gay.

Yes. This is the problem.

 

[The Tradition]

My take on gay marriage is that the government shouldn't be in the mix at all. Why the hell do you need a license to get married? Why do you need a government certification that you're married? The government should have nothing to do with it.

 

[22*43*51]

It is, but most aren't. I'm pro traditional marriage and pro SSM. Most who say they are pro traditional marriage think other forms of marriage should be prevented. You can't be for preventing gay marriage and not be anti-gay.

I'm for preventing religious organizations from having to perform gay marriages if that is not in their belief structure.

Gay marriage can be as civil as it want's to be, but don't force it to become sacramental.

Or, start a church that recognizes gay marriage as sacramental and profit. Win/Win.

 

[naturalmwa]

My take on gay marriage is that the government shouldn't be in the mix at all. Why the hell do you need a license to get married? Why do you need a government certification that you're married? The government should have nothing to do with it.

That's a cop out. They are involved with it. We aren't waxing philosophically about what a perfect society should be, we are dealing with reality. And in reality, if you are against one group of people gaining access to any societal franchize or convention, you are anti that group of people.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That would depend on the wording of the amendment. Right now, they deal with that with the debt ceiling. Problem is, they keep raising the debt ceiling instead of not spending so much or finding new revenue sources. That game can't go on forever.

I agree. I mean it can go on forever, but it's probably a bad idea.

The problem with crafting a balanced budget amendment is building in enough flexibility that you don't screw yourself in case of genuine emergencies, yet don't let pseudo-emergencies and politics undermine the intended fiscal soundness.

At a very minimum, I think you would have to give the Executive branch some temporary authority to declare an emergency. Which would have to be ratified by Congress within a sensible interval or terminate. Sort of like we do with the use of military force.

Thereafter, I suppose we could rely upon the Congress to authorize an extension of borrowing by a supermajority. But perhaps only if that same Congressional action either raises revenues, cuts programs, or both to quickly end the imbalance.

The problem is, how do we keep this from turning into exactly the same sort of circus we see with raising the debt limit? If we require a supermajority, we make it too easy to shut down government for good or bad reasons. Yet if we don't we risk making it too easy to declare emergencies willy nilly.

 

[The Tradition]

That's a cop out. They are involved with it. We aren't waxing philosophically about what a perfect society should be, we are dealing with reality. And in reality, if you are against one group of people gaining access to any societal franchize or convention, you are anti that group of people.

The gay marriage debate is simply an EXAMPLE of why the government shouldn't be involved.

The way Mormon polygamists had their religious rights stomped all over is another example.