That is not exactly the fear I expressed previously, but it is a scary thought. Lets look at how it plays out using the language of the amendment proposed the other day.

Lets assume that there is a dispute about whether total outlays for a fiscal year exceed total receipts. I take it that a lawsuit would be brought, though I don't know who would bring the suit or who the defendants would be. What would the court be called upon to do at that point? Presumably the fiscal year has already come and gone by the time the suit is filed, otherwise the court would be unable to determine what the total receipts would be. By the time the court case and appeals are concluded, we will probably be two fiscal years down the road. Would the defendants then be ordered to go and get those excess outlays back? From whom? Would the court prioritize which recipients would be required to give their outlays back?

Wow. That's quite a lawsuit, but it would pale in comparison to the suit brought under Section 2. In that suit the judge (or perhaps it would be a jury trial) would determine whether the outlays for a fiscal year exceed one-fifth of the "economic output of the United States," whatever that is. That determination would be made by a judge who was probably an English major (that's why he or she went to law school), but I'm sure it would work out just peachy.

You could probably propose an amendment that would be less idiotic than the amendment proposed the other day, but I doubt that there is such thing as a balanced budget amendment that would do any good.