David Skaggs: “Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is the third time in as many years that we are considering amending the Constitution…”

“Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is the third time in as many years that we are considering amending the Constitution to require a two-thirds majority of both Houses regarding any increase in revenue. Note revenue, not just taxes. I guess this is turning into one of those rites of spring, like the Cherry Blossom Festival, that comes around when the sap rises. But let us not be taken for saps in this. This is not a spring fling that is harmless fun. It is very serious business. We need to take it seriously even though the process and the timing of this debate, like the cherry blossom parade, suggest that it is mainly for show. The proposed amendment is a bad idea. But it is also coming before this House through a process that insults Members' intelligence, contradicts any aspiration that this body has to be a thoughtful one, and really demeans and debases the constitutional amendment process itself. Second, perhaps, only to declaring war, an amendment to the Constitution ought to command the most serious deliberation and legislative review and analysis we are capable of. It deserves much better treatment than this kind of rush job. The Constitution is a little bit too important to be used as a prop for a political stunt. Even if this were being considered in a serious way, it does not warrant approval, first, because it is undemocratic, and second, because it is grossly impractical.”