I oppose putting this type of requirement in the Constitution and I would like to tell you why. The Constitution did not create our budget problems and changing it will not solve them. Rather--solving our budget problems will require an exercise of political will which is not dependent on the Constitution and cannot be engendered by the Constitution. The Constitution is our most valuable governing document and it should not be altered without extreme care. I believe there are three very fundamental problems with putting a balanced budget requirement in the U.S. Constitution. My first objection concerns the manner in which this addition would change the nature of our Constitution. The second involves the change in the balance of powers between the three branches of government which I believe would result from this type of constitutional requirement. And, my third objection relates to the change in the balance of power within the legislative branch under some of the proposals.
Martin Sabo: “I oppose putting this type of requirement in the Constitution and I would like to tell you why. The Constitution did not…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the balanced budget amendment during a House committee discussion.
Share
More from Martin Sabo
My understanding is that Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Marshall both have amendments to page 3 on line 15, so I assume what the Chair is saying is that if the gentleman redrafted his amendment before we moved to some place beyond Pascrell and…
Yes, I do. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
I will continue to reserve my point of order, and I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the gentleman explain the amendment to me. What is it that somebody at the Federal level has to do?
I am just curious, did the Speaker call for a vote, and did I hear some people vote aye? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a pertinent parliamentary inquiry. The question is on the motion to table.





