Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Amendment 28th

augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:49:48 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Amendment XXVIII

Section 1

Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of the Executive Departments and submitted to the Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the United States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.

All Bills appropriating money from the Treasury shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purpose for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

Every Bill appropriating money shall deal only with such appropriation, and other matters unrelated thereto shall have no effect.

Where Congress amends any Bill (but subject to this Constitution) that increases the dollar item of an existing appropriation or that introduces new appropriations, the Houses shall likewise include recommendations for the raising of additional revenue in order to cover the cost of such increases. For this purpose a loan shall not count as an adequate source of revenue.

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect. Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

Congress may not amend any Bill so as to impose or increase any financial charge or burden on the people.

Section 2

Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the title. If a law embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void. A law may not be amended by reference to its title. A section of a law may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended.

All Bills appropriating money, or imposing, altering or repealing any tax, levy or impost, shall not originate in the Senate, but the Senate shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to amend or concur with the Bill as on other Bills.

Section 3

If one House of Congress passes a Bill, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the other House will not agree, and if after an interval of six months, the first-mentioned House, in the same or next session, again passes the Bill with or without amendments which shall have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the second-mentioned House, and the latter House rejects fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Houses shall convene a joint-sitting of both Houses of Congress, and if a majority of the whole number of all senators and representatives, jointly, agree to pass the Bill, with or without amendments as agreed to by the joint-sitting, the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses of Congress and shall be presented to the President in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

Any Bill that shall have had a second reading in both Houses of Congress may be deemed urgent at the request of not less than one-fifth of the whole number of senators and representatives, jointly; in such cases the Houses shall suspend deliberation on all other business until such time as a vote on the designated Bill shall have been concluded; provided, that such urgent deliberation is requested on only one Bill at a time, and only once per session of Congress. But nothing in this section shall apply to any Bill which is required by this Constitution to be examined by a specific date or period of time.

Section 4

The President my approve any appropriation and disapprove or reduce any other appropriation in the same Bill. In such case he shall, in signing the Bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the Bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President. The disapproval of an appropriation shall also extend to the reversion of a dollar amount of an appropriation to its original figure.

Section 5

The Bill appropriating money for the purpose of supplying the Government with the funds to carry on the Government of the United States shall deal only with such appropriation, but may contain more than one item of appropriation, and that for one certain, expressed purpose.

The President shall present the Congress with the said Bill within the first thirty days of the first session of Congress each calendar year. As on other appropriation Bills the Congress shall not amend said appropriations, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas or nays; and where the President or Congress includes additional appropriations the appropriations shall relate to only those items concerning the foregoing, and the Houses likewise may not alter the revised estimates but they shall have power to concur or reject any or all of them.

Congress shall pass the Bill for foregoing appropriations Bill by the fifteenth-day of June each year. If, by midnight on the fifteenth-day of June the Congress shall have failed to pass the said Bill, there shall be no appropriation from the current or future appropriations for the emoluments, benefits or allowances for senators and representatives, from midnight at the said day and time until the Bill is presented to the President. No emolument or reimbursement for benefits or allowances forfeited pursuant to this clause shall be paid retroactively. And if, by the final day of June the Houses have not passed the aforementioned Bill the President shall instruct the Treasury to continue disbursing funds to carry on the Executive Government in accordance with the appropriations of the preceding Bill, until such time as the new Bill shall have passed both Houses of Congress, and become a law upon the President's signature.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:18:18 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
This amendment focuses on changes to budgeting and finance process, which I believe would reduce corruption, ensure more harmony between the Legislative and the Executive; and to ensure that more considered and reasoned examination over policy.

For e.g. if every law deal only with one matter, then it would be easier for Congressmen to scrutinize each Bill and vote only on the issue, as opposed to voting in favor of the whole Bill, even though he or she didn't agree with all of it. This change creates more accountability, and is useful for presidential systems.

The key innovation here is the very first Section I, which is a 'two-thirds' appropriation requirement. Many States in the US have this restriction on their Legislature. The reason why this restriction is important is because in a separation of powers system, there is a lack of 'executive dominance' which is typically seen in parliamentary system. Executive dominance means that the lower House in practice becomes a 'rubber stamp': members of the HoR don't amend appropriation Bills to suit their individual constituents; they have to vote as per the instruction of the executive, otherwise there'll be consequences.

In a separation of powers system, no such dominance exists; therefore there has to be another check on Congress with regards to appropriation - this is where the 2/3's requirement comes in. It would be much harder for both Houses to reach an agreement on the 'estimates' by a super-majority - and the estimates are the key here; the Houses still need to approve the appropriations but they cannot determine or amend the estimates - this is the role of the President. As the President is accountable to the people, his or her estimates are likely to be in line with the national interest, rather than the individual interests of Congressmen and powerful legislators. Also, this process creates more harmony between the executive and the legislative branches of government.
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:05:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
The ENTIRE Constitution needs to be replaced, as well as ALL State Constitutions being replaced with a Constitution that PROPERLY CONFORMS to Article 4 and they do NOT include a Bill of Rights.

Rights are a National matter, not State, so a Bill of Rights in the State Constitutions is redundancy, brought about by the Original 13 States having an inappropriate Bill of Rights in their constitutions, AFTER the CREATION of Federalism, and Congress couldn't do anything about it at the time, so they had to hide it by requiring a Bill of Rights in every State Constitution.

You should read the Martin Luther decision from 1849, to UNDERSTAND how Congress, the President, and the United States Supreme Court ,were ALL acting under Article 4 duress the entire time, because of the Seditious nature of the state legislatures. ;)

The 14th Amendment was supposed to fix that but the Lawyers on the bench of the Supreme Court won't give We the People our Constitution, they continue supporting Statesism instead, although Statesism automatically violates Article 4, but when the Politically Motivated Lawyers on the bench establish that Article 4 shall forever be political, federalism then gets ignored and We the People are then subjected to the tyrannical whims of our politically established Article 4 unconstitutional governments.

http://i65.tinypic.com...

Ribbit :)
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 1:35:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 11:05:28 PM, Toad-Uoff wrote:
The ENTIRE Constitution needs to be replaced, as well as ALL State Constitutions being replaced with a Constitution that PROPERLY CONFORMS to Article 4 and they do NOT include a Bill of Rights.

Rights are a National matter, not State, so a Bill of Rights in the State Constitutions is redundancy, brought about by the Original 13 States having an inappropriate Bill of Rights in their constitutions, AFTER the CREATION of Federalism, and Congress couldn't do anything about it at the time, so they had to hide it by requiring a Bill of Rights in every State Constitution.

You should read the Martin Luther decision from 1849, to UNDERSTAND how Congress, the President, and the United States Supreme Court ,were ALL acting under Article 4 duress the entire time, because of the Seditious nature of the state legislatures. ;)

The 14th Amendment was supposed to fix that but the Lawyers on the bench of the Supreme Court won't give We the People our Constitution, they continue supporting Statesism instead, although Statesism automatically violates Article 4, but when the Politically Motivated Lawyers on the bench establish that Article 4 shall forever be political, federalism then gets ignored and We the People are then subjected to the tyrannical whims of our politically established Article 4 unconstitutional governments.

http://i65.tinypic.com...

Ribbit :)
--
Thank you for your comments.

I agree that the States should ideally enforce civil rights and liberties; but the problem is that American history has shown us that the States have been in capable in enforcing and protecting the rights of the people; for e.g. post-reconstruction and the Jim Crow laws. The Federal Government had no choice but impose its will in this matter.

A strong nation-state in the 21st century is dependent on a strong centralized government, so centralization is not bad for a modern nation-state. The fact is that the State Arkansas could not provide its citizens with decent healthcare coverage on its own, so there needs to be a centralized taxation system, in which the Federal Government distributes money to smaller States so that they can have the resources to provide services to its people.

The Federal Government has to enforce civil rights and liberties as all citizens within the nation deserve the equal protection of rights.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:20:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
An important aspect of this amendment involves the resolution of disagreement between the two Houses of Congress. This is where a joint-sitting comes in. Combined with the 29th Amendment, a joint-sitting would be fair, because there would be a decent presence of senators in the joint-sitting to voice their opinion.

In most cases, particularly in a strong two-party system, the House would win out a joint-sitting; but given that the House is 'closer' to the people this is acceptable. Besides, once a Bill has passed the joint-sitting it would still need to be approved by the President whose veto power would be subject to a two-thirds override of both Houses. My argument would be that the President, if he or she is non-partisan, would be less likely to exercise his or her veto power in cases where there was reasonable evidence to deduce that the Houses had thoroughly scrutinized a Bill (as in the case of a joint-sitting).

Ultimately, there has to be a mechanism to resolve deadlock and conflict between both Houses, otherwise it makes the Legislature obstructionist, which is bad for the political process. Again, this is another example of a change in the behavior of political actors.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 7:57:29 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Some of the key proposals in this amendment are drawn from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America during its brief existence.

Whilst I do not consider the Confederacy as an exemplar of good governance due to its preservation of chattel slavery, the Framers of this Constitution had the benefit of hindsight and less 100 years of practical evidence of Government. One Framer believed that there weren't enough checks and balances in the original system, and so they added more.

Also, some States like California and Nebraska add super-majority requirements for the appropriation of money and also have line-item veto.