Budget Amendment Request Form: Fill & Download for Free

Not that I’ve seen. Nobody really wants to do a complete rewrite on the Constitution. The closest thing is support for an amendment to force a balanced budget. Various state legislatures have passed a request for Congress to convene a convention for a balanced budget amendment, but never the requisite 34 states at the same time.At the moment, 27 state legislatures have valid applications outstanding to form a convention for a balanced budget amendment. 6 more states have passed resolutions calling for a plenary (unlimited) convention. Some scholars think that Congress should count calls for a plenary convention along with calls for a balanced budget convention, on the grounds that “everything” is a superset of “balanced budget only”.So if it ever happens that a majority of both houses and the President think a convention for a balanced budget amendment would be a good thing, they could vote to count the petitions that way and convene a convention. This would give them a way around the 2/3 requirement for Congress to submit an amendment to the states.Just one problem: a 2/3 vote of Congress or of the state legislatures is only enough to get the process started. Actually amendment the constitution would still require ratification by 3/4 of the states (that’s 38 states).

Governor Greg Abbott’s proposal is not realistic because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of a limited constitutional convention. Presidential Candidate Marco Rubio is unrealistic for the same reasons. So is Mark E. Levin, author of the popular book The Liberty Amendments, which proposes conservative amendments through a limited convention. Also failing to call a limited constitutional convention are the Wolf PAC, a liberal group trying to overturn Citizens United, and Citizens for Self-Governance, a conservative group trying to limit the power of the Federal government.A limited constitutional convention is an invented concept that is not in the Constitution, but not exactly not in the Constitution either. Article V says: “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments”.There is no mention of limiting the subject of a convention, but if two thirds of the states call for a convention limited to certain subjects, perhaps they can make those limits stick if they forbid their delegates from discussing anything else. The delegates from the other states could propose whatever they want, but their proposals would go nowhere if the two thirds maintained discipline.There are two potential ways to call a limited convention. The first is to write the desired amendment and specify that only that amendment is to be considered. This is apparently what Governor Abbott wants. He has seven proposals , although he hasn’t bothered to write them in the form of amendments as talk show host Levin did. If he can persuade the Texas legislature to call for a constitutional convention to consider these proposals and only these proposals, he is one thirty-fourth of the way there.The problem is that Abbott probably can’t get both houses of the Texas legislature to agree with him or with each other on common wording, much less get both houses of two thirds of the states to concur on the same wording. While many people want to fix the constitution, few of them agree on what to fix, much less the exact wording of how to fix it. You can see a list of the hundreds of state applications for limited conventions here: List of state applications for an Article V Convention. But so far none has won the support of two thirds of the states.And you won’t get two thirds of the states to apply for any specific conservative or liberal proposal because the country is close to evenly divided. There are many ways to count red and blue states, but none that would come anywhere near giving two thirds to either group. And that’s not even considering the three fourths you need for ratification.So we’re left with the other way of calling a constitutional convention which is to call it on a specific subject. Imagine you asked every state legislature to pass this: “The state of [X] hereby requests a constitutional convention to propose [a debt limitation] amendment. The convention is called for this purpose alone and the delegates of [X] are not authorized to vote for or discuss any other amendment.”Notice that this example is a debt limitation amendment, not a balanced budget amendment. You could never persuade liberal states to consider the absolute balanced budget amendment conservatives have in mind, but you might get them to discuss a debt limitation amendment based on reasonable compromises. After all, countries such as Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland have constitutional limits on debt. Maybe it’s a subject worth discussing.So the only realistic way to call a limited convention is to choose a problem rather than a solution. If everyone agrees that the topic is indeed a national problem that needs a solution, the convention might have a change to solve it through compromise. In other words, you’d have a convention like the first one in 1787 where nobody got everything they wanted and the end position was better than the starting position. It’s a long shot, but the only one available.

Pretty simple.I would order the US Attorney General to challenge every gun law starting with NFA34 in the Supreme Court, and I would order the BATFE to cease all operations and revoke their operating authority until such time as the Court came to a decision, pending disbandment. Further, by Executive Order I would order all Federal law enforcement personnel to stop enforcing Federal gun laws until such time as the Court reached a decision.I would see disbarred from every Federal Court judges who chose to “re-interpret” the US Constitution rather than uphold the plain text for all to see.I would issue a presidential pardon for all “weapons” charges in the US. Note, people would still be on the hook for any actual crimes they committed.I would instruct the Secret Service to simply assume that everyone around me is armed, and forbid them from disarming people at events I attend.I would request that all 4473 records be destroyed (as they are held by private dealers I cannot so order their destruction), and on the chance that the Supreme Court fails in their duty to uphold the US Constitution and my successor is a dick, issue a blanket presidential pardon for the destruction of those records.I would order the Department of Defense to dispose of arms through the Civilian Marksmanship Program rather than destruction, and increase the CMP’s funding. Probably just give them the BATFE’s budget.I would order the Department of Education and the CMP, with requested aid from the NRA, to devise a program to educate children about gun safety[1]. Any school that elected to receive Federal money would be required to have the course. Any school that did not receive Federal funding could still have the course if they desire.With assistance, I would draft and propose a bill that would make the owner or proprietor of a property that bans arms on its premises and does not then provide armed security, liable for injury or property damage of patrons or guests due to criminal action that could reasonably have been stopped if the patrons had been armed. I know there’s a bunch of bugs to work out with this one first, that’s why I’m not actually going to try to draft it now.With the assistance of the CMP, I would continue or re-institute as necessary the tradition of awarding the top winner of the President’s Hundred [2]a hand-written letter.I would form the “Constitutional Protection Advisory Board” as a special section of the presidential cabinet, for the express purpose of proposing policy or amending policy to uphold the US Constitution as it is actually written, and I would request that both Anthony Zarrella and User-12828854714828252077 serve on the board. I’d probably have it be 13 members in total for symbolic reasons.Because if I’m president, it’s not just the gun rights I’m interested in restoring.Original question-How would you deal with gun rights in America if you were President?Footnotes[1] Murphy’s suggestions on what to do about school shootings.[2] President's Hundred Tab - Wikipedia