Balanced Budget Amendment: The Solution? Or Deathblow?

By: Publius Huldah

The BBA Made Simple

Say you want your Butler to buy some groceries; so you give him your credit card.  You can:

  1. Give him an ENUMERATED LIST of what you want him to buy: 1 chicken, 5# of apples, two heads of cabbage, a 2# sack of brown rice, and a dozen eggs.  Whatever amount he spends for these enumerated items will be charged to you.
  1. Tell him he may spend on whatever he wants, and ask him to please don’t spend more than 18% of your weekly income. But whatever amount he decides to spend (on pork and other things) will be charged to you.

The first illustrates how our Constitution is written:  The items on which Congress is authorized to spend money are listed – enumerated – in the Constitution.  To see the list, go HERE.

The second illustrates how a balanced budget amendment (BBA) works:  It creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the federal government wants to spend money on.  And there is no enforceable limit on the amount of spending.

Our Constitution Limits Spending to the Enumerated Powers

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want.  If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.

Because everyone has ignored these existing limitations for so long, we now have a national debt of some $20 trillion plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities. 1

Various factions are now telling conservatives that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with a BBA.

Obviously, that is not true.  The constitutional answer is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.  Eliminate federal departments (Education, Energy, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc.), for which there is no constitutional authority.  2

Since our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government, most of what they’ve spent money on since the early 1900s is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Yet our Constitution is still legally in place; and can be dusted off, read, and enforced by a Repentant People.  They can shrink the federal government to the size established by the Constitution which created it. 3

Using the Federal “Budget” to Snap the Trap on an Unsuspecting People

Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

Spending is to be limited by the enumerated powers.  Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, the Treasury is to publish periodic Statements and Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditures.  Since the list of objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money is so short, it would be a simple matter to monitor federal spending and receipts.

But since the unconstitutional Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Presidents and Congress have been putting into the “budget” whatever they want to spend money on.

Do you see that if the federal government is given constitutional authority (via a BBA) to spend money on whatever they want, they are ipso facto granted constitutional authority to exert power over whatever they want?

Oh, Americans!  False friends lead you astray and confuse the path you should take.  Under the pretext of imposing “fiscal responsibility” with a BBA, they would legalize the totalitarian dictatorship which has been developing in this Country for 100 years.

Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment

A BBA changes the standard for spending from whether the object is an enumerated power to whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. 4

So a BBA would transform the federal government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to one of general and unlimited powers because it would authorize Congress to appropriate funds for – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put in the budget!

A BBA Doesn’t Reduce Federal Spending

A BBA wouldn’t reduce federal spending because:

  • All versions permit spending limits to be waived when Congress votes to waive them; and
  • Congress can always “balance the budget” with tax increases. Compact for America’s “balanced budget amendment” delegates massive new taxing authority to Congress:  it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping the income tax.

Typical Misconceptions

Americans think, “I have to balance my budget; so the federal government should have to balance theirs.”

They overlook the profound distinctions between the economies of their own family unit and that of the national government of a Federation of States.  Our federal Constitution sets up a system where Congress is to appropriate funds only to carry out the enumerated powers; and the bills are to be paid with receipts from excise taxes and import tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by a direct assessment on the States apportioned according to population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).

Americans also think that since States have balanced budget amendments, the federal government should have one.  They overlook the profound distinction between the federal Constitution and State Constitutions:  5

  • The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of enumerated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.
  • But State Constitutions created State governments of general and almost unlimited powers. Accordingly, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything.  So State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.


A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told.  Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.

Twenty-eight States have already passed applications for a BBA.  Go HERE to check the status of your State.  Warn your friends and State Legislators.  For a model your State can use to rescind its previous applications, go HERE and look under “Take Action” column, or contact me.  Do not let the malignant elite complete their revolution by replacing our Constitution.


1 State governments are voracious consumers of federal funds.  THIS shows what percentage of your State’s revenue is from federal funds.  Contrary to what RINO State Legislators say, they don’t want federal spending reduced: They want to keep those federal dollars flooding in.

2 George Washington’s Cabinet had 4 members:  Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.

3 Our federal Constitution is short and easy to understand.  The only way you can avoid being misled is to find out for yourself what it says.  Be a Berean (Acts 17:10-12).

4 Amendments change all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution.  Eg., the 13th Amendment changed Art. I, §2, clause 3 & Art. IV, §2, clause 3 because they were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.

5 In Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end), James Madison said:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”


Did Trump Really Win the Election?

By: Carolyn Alder

Hillary won the popular vote—Trump won the Electoral Vote—or did he?
Dec 19th the Presidential Electors cast their votes—Jan 6th we’ll know who
captured the White House—or will the House of Representatives decide?

It seems pretty cut and dried that Trump captured the White House.  Usually the Presidential Electors are a meaningless “rubber-stamp” weeks after the popular vote winner in each State is declared.  However, this year the complaining, protesting, rabble-rousing, turmoil and battle continue—to defeat Trump.

The Presidential Electors have been bombarded with continual email, snail mail, petitions, and phone calls to persuade them to vote for anyone but Trump.  The goal is to reduce the Electoral votes below 270, and let the House of Representatives make the choice.

How did our presidential election process deteriorate to become so loathsome and degenerate?  Three main reasons: political parties, campaigning and popular vote.

Why do we assume the loudest Huckster makes the best President?

The Framers intelligently created a constitutional federation—not a democracy. We describe the structure as a complex constitutional representative republic.

The Framers of the Constitution very carefully outlined in Article II, the procedure for electing a President for the United States.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize: political parties at all (let alone taking over the election process), office seekers campaigning across the nation, or popular vote by the people—mass democracy.

Nothing seems to be more misunderstood than the reasons why the Framers outlined in the Constitution, the use of Presidential Electors in the process of electing a President for the United States.  It is known as the Electoral College.

There have been many recent articles defending the Electoral College and many articles demanding we eliminate the Electoral College by going to a national popular vote.  Tragically, the genius of the purpose and benefits of the system, outlined in the original Constitution is totally unknown today.  Even the articles coming to the defense of the Electoral College, are missing the most important points.

The Presidential Electors were not designed as an “after-thought” to be merely a “rubber-stamp” after years of campaigning—self-aggrandizing office seekers, boasting their qualifications, while trying to cover-up their criminal actives and minimizing their own misdeeds; while tearing their opponents to shreds.  The constitutional election process was designed to avoid political campaigning across the nation, party primaries, state and national conventions, office seekers running on promises which are usually legislative issues, not their prerogative at all, as an Executive.  Candidates promise people so called entitlements, buy votes with bribes, and take millions from special interests on their way to capture the White House.  The best salesman wins the war.  Or as I asked earlier, “Is the loudest Huckster the best President?”

The Framers designed an ingenious system which was the opposite of all of this.  As I mentioned, it was designed to avoid all campaigning, rabble rousing, tumult and disorder because the Office of the President was not elected by the people!  He was not the “King of the people.”

The Framers had discussed many options for selecting a President, and they rejected the idea of a popular vote for President.  The one and only national office to be elected by the people was member of the House of Representatives.

Here is one of the critical missing facts in every discussion:  Every national level office was outlined to be elected using a different method, by a different group of people, representing different (and sometimes conflicting) interests. Each position was to serve a different term in office and was given different enumerated responsibilities.  Each office was to represent a different interest and check other offices from usurping delegated prerogatives.  (Party politics only represents the party interests at every level.)  Each position outlined by the Constitution was designed for thinkers and statesmen at every level.

The method for electing the President was described in detail in Article II of the Constitution.  The ingenious system designated the Electors as the first step in the process. The Electors were the “forethought” not the rubber-stamp “afterthought”.

The Presidential Electors in every State had a very important assignment.  This group of carefully selected intelligent individuals, chosen in whatever manner their State Legislature decided, would meet in their individual states on the same day across the nation.  Each independent Elector was to recommend two outstanding individuals who could be presidential possibilities. Nominate two (not campaign for one) who they thought would best represent the interest of the Nation and carry out the will of Congress as the Chief Executive. Their recommendations would be based on past performance and service to their state or to the nation—not campaign promises.

The President’s responsibility was not to appeal to the will of the people—he was not the “King of the People.”  The President was the chief Executive of the Union of the States.

The list of names recommended by the independent Electors in each State with the number for votes for each, were then signed, sealed, certified and submitted to the Seat of Government.  The lists would be opened in joint secession of Congress.  The process of opening and tallying the Electors’ nominations determined who the candidates would be. The 5 most recommended individuals by the Electors were the candidates submitted to the House of Representatives for election by the States.  The Representatives from each State formed a delegation which had one vote.  The Vice-president was to come from this same pool of outstanding statesmen.

This system for electing a President is so ingenious, because one group outside of government control and influence—the Electors, representing the people of the various States, would make the recommendations, and another group which was part of government, the peoples’ House of Representatives, would make the final election, as equal states.

The Framers outlined and established a “Constitutional Federation”, not a democracy. This was a truly ingenious structure of government.  They created a “more perfect union,” established justice, safeguarded freedom, individual liberty and prosperity.

We claim that constitutional government was destroyed by party government. The first branch to fall was the Executive Branch.  The hastily written and ratified 12th Amendment was a result of party machinations usurping the assignment of the independent Electors to recommend outstanding presidential possibilities.  Parties encouraged political campaigning, running for office and led the country from a constitutional federation to mass democracy.

We invite examination of our research and analysis in our book, The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College.  From Amazon

Previous articles for more details:
The Framers Designed a Far Superior Process

Carolyn Alder  [email protected]
The original Constitution was truly the “Formula for Freedom.”