By the way – my comment would also cover both times the words are used.

I don’t disagree with you that the “general welfare” and “interstate commerce” clauses have been perverted beyond all recognition. (Anyone who claims that the “general welfare” clause* provides any basis whatsoever for expansive government is woefully ignorant as to the elementary principles of statutory construction, to say nothing of history.) Nonetheless, there is a legitimate purpose to both of those clauses. So while I would favor some sort of amendment restricting judicial interpretation to their original intended purposes, I can’t agree with simply nullifying both of them. The unintended consequences would be severe.

* Actually, there are two “general welfare” clauses in the Constitution, one in the Preamble as well as the one you cited in Article 1, Section 8. My comments apply to both of them.

High culture is evil – all modern British people are taught this (read the article on “Waterstones” book chain in the latest issue of the Spectator magazine – and you will understand what I mean).

A new Constitution……

The advantage of the existing one is that there is two centuries of experience to see which words can be plucked out of context to be used as an excuse for statism.

There is no need for a Constitutional Convention – just the following admendment:

The words “general welfare” and “regulate interstate commerce” are no longer to be held to have any legal force what so ever in giving powers to the government of these United States.

I repeat the left rip these words from their context (for example “the common defence and general welfare” is the PURPOSE of the powers granted to Congress by Article One, Section Eight, there is no catch all “general welfare spending power”), but if the words were formally struck down they could not be used.

So no need to rewrite the entire Constitution (although if you do – I suggest the New Jersey Plan), just strike down the legal force of “general welfare” and “regulate interstate commerce”.

If any other words in the text could be used by the left – they would have used them by now.

Agreed. But having a spending limit which is tied to GDP (and not merely requiring a “balanced” budget, which is a bad joke) makes it much harder to game the system. Adjustments to the GDP calculation methodology would have a very small impact, so it would take a long time before they could have any material effect on the spending limit, and by then most of the benefit would have been achieved. Of course, the Amendment should contain some protective language, such as that GDP is to be calculated “employing methodologies consistent with those applied at the time of ratification of this article”, although I’ll concede that even this wouldn’t be a permanent solution. But there is nothing “permanent” in human affairs; all we can do is the best we can do, and let posterity take care of itself.

The original Constitution served us well for about 150 years, before the progressives and revisionists managed to completely subvert it. A properly crafted Balanced Budget Amendment would be a step in the right direction and would help restore the balance. It’s better than nothing.

The problem with actuarial limits is they simply cook the books…

Exactly. No kind of politicking can solve the problem. There have to be a solid majority of elected representatives who genuinely want to do it, which means a solid majority of voters asking for it (and truly understanding what it means).

That’s why progressive taxation is so dangerous. By putting the burden of taxation on a minority, it ensures that the majority has a vested interest in more government spending. It’s not realistic to expect the majority to vote against its individual best interest. It would be nice, but it’s not realistic.

• Mandates that total budgetary outlays for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues.
• Caps federal spending at 20 percent of GDP.
• Requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every fiscal year.
• Requires two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate on any measure that raises taxes.
• Provisions can be waived if there is a formal declaration of war, if the U.S. is engaged in a military conflict constituting a threat to national security, or if two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve.

I don’t like the “military conflict” exception, but other than that it looks promising. I look forward to seeing the complete text.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) unveiled their proposed balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the U.S. Constitution at a press conference on Capitol Hill. Pass the BBA National Chairman Ken Blackwell (bio: http://tinyurl.com/48rucvw) was in attendance and thanked the Senators for their commitment to putting America’s fiscal house in order.

“The Cornyn-Hatch BBA comes at a critical time. We simply cannot afford to continue this dangerous pattern of reckless, deficit spending any longer. Pass the BBA strongly supports this proposed amendment because it contains the key elements we have been pushing, namely a mandate that total budgetary outlays for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues, a federal spending cap at 20 percent of GDP, a requirement that the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every fiscal year, a prohibition against tax increases that are not approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and they have expressed their commitment to have a vote on their BBA by October 1, 2011, the beginning of the next fiscal year,” stated Blackwell.

(Link)

That sort of corrupt, statist system is indeed what not only Obama, but the Political Class [thanks to the pollster Rasmussen for his working definition of such last summer] regardless of party are aiming for. The tendrils of State control are everywhere spreading. For instance, the nationalization of our health care system includes in its thousands of unread before passage pages, the requirement that all businesses report all sales and purchases over $600 to the IRS via an individual form 1099 as of 2012. Aside from the fact that there is doubt that even with modern IT systems, it could be done; what does that have to do with Health Care? I think more likely it is intended specifically to make everyone liable for a criminal prosecution at will. Or the included provision within the nationalization that buyers and sellers of gold have to both report the transaction as INCOME on their taxes starting in 2012? Anybody thinking of another April 1933? Or the change in the student loan system so that the government and not banks decide who gets loans for higher education?

We found with GM, Chrysler, and the crony capitalism bailing out banks, brokerage houses, and unions who paid off the Democrats; that the rule of law is now sufficiently flexible that it can be folded back on itself like a Klein Bottle. The Constitution itself is beginning to look like a rehearsal at Circ de Soleil. Our laughingly named Justice Department has declared it as policy that it will not investigate alleged violations of civil rights of non-minorities.

If the law not only fails to protect you, and indeed is being used as a bludgeon against you; an individual or small business that can’t afford to bribe the organs of the State has to resort to an underground economy to survive.

We are getting there already. It will be interesting, in the Chinese sense, what decrees will come down in the wake of the coming economic collapse and/or war.

There are means of resistance, but with our electoral system being closer to Cuba’s than to the traditional New England town hall; that is a slender reed to lean on indeed.

In the meantime, individuals and mom-and-pop businesses do what they need to survive.

Subotai Bahadur

What is likely to result is not Italy (where the left are, oddly enough, in some ways weaker than might be thought – perhaps because many non leftist Italians understand the danger of “Gramsci tactics” and have learned to fight them), but BRAZIL.

Indeed most of Latin America (as described by de Soto) – endless “social justice” (with much mob violence) and yet (in reality no contradiction at all) an ever widerning gulf between rich and poor – and every major institution in society under the control of the ideological left (blaming the poverty on “capitalism”).

Businessmen (big or small) living by corruption – by bribes and dodges, and working in alliance (perhaps by choice – perhaps by grim necessity) with the very statists who have created the endless fiat money expansion (the credit bubble financial system – so Latin American already) and the endless regulations and schemes.

Remember the left in the United States (including the establishment “moderate” left such as Newsweek) are open in their praise of Brazil – it is one of their models.

Already the state oil company of Brazil gets subsdized by the American taxpayer (thanks Comrade Barack) to drill for oil which the Brazilian regime gets the profits of – yes to do the very think that Barack Obama has made de facto illegal to do in the waters of the United States.

I say “state oil company” – but there is at least one major private share holder.

Mr George Soros – Mr Crony Capitalist himself.

Where ever there is the stink of corruption there are people like Soros – and such “businessmen” are no allies of pro liberty people.

Take the example of the expansion of FDA regulations (one of Cas Susteen’s “nudges”?).

This does not only mean that only drug companies that are friendly with the regime (for example support Obamacare) can really expect to develop new medical drugs, it ALSO means that there is a excuse for government drug development.

“The private sector is not developing the new medical advances we need – so the govenrment HAS TO step in with its own development”.

I am not making this up – Comrade Barack has already said it.

And, no doubt, lots of pet businessmen will be lineing up to agree.