Orrin Hatch: “before I summarize the reasons the Reid amendment is an unacceptable alternative to the Simon-Hatch balanced budget…”

“before I summarize the reasons the Reid amendment is an unacceptable alternative to the Simon-Hatch balanced budget amendment, I would like to reply to some of the points made by the Senator from Nevada and others in response to my statement yesterday. The Senator from Nevada said that my arguments criticizing his amendment were a lot of 'legal mumbo jumbo.' It seems odd to me that anyone would object to a discussion of constitutional law and principles in a debate on a constitutional amendment. It seems even odder that a recitation of the significant Supreme Court precedent would be termed 'legal mumbo jumbo.' The Senator stated that, as an attorney, he was familiar with the maxim that when the facts are not on your side, argue the law. Well, as with so many other things in this debate, the Senator from Nevada has it backwards. The traditional maxim is that when the law is not on your side, argue the facts, and when the facts are not on your side, pound the table. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada did not respond to my arguments that his amendment flies in the face of constitutional theory and history: That the Reid amendment cedes unprecedented power to suspend the Constitution and to make budget decisions to unelected officials, and violates the basic norms of due process, which we have followed for 200 years in constitutional history.”