Sunday’s post regarding Article V legislation by Dwight Scharnhorst and Chuck Gatschenberger is in need of some clarification and correction. It was reported, here, that both representatives proposed Article V legislation to advance a balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, only Chuck Gatschenberger is asking for an Article V convention. Dwight Scharnhost is asking for a congressionally proposed amendment.
What’s the difference? Well, the differences are vast.
As was hotly debated, last year in Missouri, an open Article V convention could give way to considering not only a balanced budget amendment, as proposed by Gatschenberger, but any other amendments by any other states would and could also be considered once a convention is underway. Opponents fear the consequences of unknown and unwelcomed revisions to the Constitution. Gatschenberger, himself, acknowledges the risk, and is not deterred by it.
Many constitutional supporters believe a congressionally proposed amendment is the better and safer choice in maintaining the integrity of the Constitution, while enabling the elected to focus only on one amendment as brought forth by two thirds of both houses of congress, without the threat of being derailed by other initiatives. Opponents of Article V argue a congressional proposal is more in line with the vision of how government should work for the people.
Article V – U.S. Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Representative Sharnhorst has been a proponent for and has proposed the constitutional amendment for several years. This session's bill is HCR3.
“Advocating for a constitutional convention can be very dangerous. If you open that door, without proper preparation and thought, you can create a situation in this country that I’m not sure we would want to see.
But my approach is to ask the federal government to do their job. I am not trying to usurp their authority or their responsibility. What I am saying is, you people finally need to come to the conclusion that you have a responsibility to do this and it is your domain for you to make the decision of how you want to go about it.
I have my hands full as a state legislator. I am proud to say Mo is only one of five to six states that still has a triple-A, bond credit rating. If the U.S. was run like the state of Missouri, we would be in a lot better shape.
I think it would be irresponsible of me to go in any other direction.”
He also cites, “The U.S. government is now responsible for more than one third of all government debt in the world.” The official debt of the United States is now at $15.2 trillion dollars, each man, woman and child is responsible for $48,800 of that debt, and each household is responsible for $127,431. In the first two years of the present administration, we added more debt to the U.S. than the first one hundred congresses, combined.”
Representative Sharnhorst can be contacted at 573-751-4392 and Dwight.Scharnhorst@house.mo.gov
Comments