Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, today's debate over the balanced budget amendment is highly instructive. It throws the differences between those who believe in limited government and those who believe in an ever-expanding federal government into sharp relief.

This debate brings to mind what American founder Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 84.

He said that the Bill of Rights was ``..... not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.''

He thought that it ``would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?''

He made a good point, but the Bill of Rights was adopted and has served to secure many of the liberties we enjoy.

Even though he was somewhat wrong about the Bill of Rights, he was correct in understanding the nature of power and government.

After all, if a power is implied, enthusiasts of big government are bound to leverage the slightest constitutional hiccup into a new ``enumerated power.'' It appears that Hamilton understood very well the tendency of some to rush to the federal government to solve problems, create programs and expand in size and scope. In this sense, Hamilton was correct; the specter of an expanded and powerful central government is one that destroys and suppresses freedom.

That is why this debate over a balanced budget amendment is so important, if only for the sharp contrasts it unveils between the various parties to this crucial debate and the visions for limited government and big government.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source