Con Con Info

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" background="04b785a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Liberty Legislation & Law</B></FONT><B>    </B><B> |     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Liberty Legislation Law"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id12.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Platform for a New AMERICAN Order"><U>Platform for a New AMERICAN Order</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id14.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Research Links"><U>Research Links</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id40.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="State Information"><U>State Information</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id43.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="State Calendar 2007"><U>State Calendar 2007</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id41.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Renegade Judges"><U>Renegade Judges</U></A>   |   <B>Con Con Info</B>   |   <A HREF="id45.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Con Con Q A"><U>Con Con Q & A</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id46.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="State Action HowTo"><U>State Action How-To</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id49.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Congress of the United States"><U>Congress of the United States</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <IMG SRC="07ab4640.gif" border=0 width="180" height="100" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <B>Support Info for:</B></div> <div> <A HREF="id6.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Con Con"><U><B>Con Con</B></U></A><B> & </B><A HREF="id47.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Conference of States"><U><B>COS </B></U></A><B>Proposals</B></div> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="06996963.jpg"> <div> <I>Con Con Info</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>The following states have passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional convention ostensibly to balance the federal budget. These should be the first targets for the con con removal resolution.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW MEXICO, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA and WYOMING.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>States that have passed Governors Nelson & Leavitt's COS resolutions (as of December 1995) were: ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, DELAWARE, IDAHO, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, UTAH, VIRGINIA, and WYOMING.</B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>ON THE SUPPOSED NEED TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION</B></div> <div> <B>Across America, people see the federal government as a different colored horse from the one created by fifty five men during the summer of 1787. Some particularly goofy ideas have come out recently that purport to be "solutions" to our national woes, but serious students of history and political science generally agree that many of the proposed solutions would be worse than the problem. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>One may think this section slightly off key from the theme of `</B><A HREF="http://www.lulu.com/bolinger" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.lulu.com/bolinger"><U><B>Downsizing Government</B></U></A><B>.' Some may argue our primary task is to </B><B>downsize</B><B> that which already exists. On the contrary however, it is important to at least keep in mind proposals currently before the public that could </B><B>increase</B><B> the size and scope of the federal government. Many proposals would, if allowed to come into legal existence, both increase the powers of the federal government, and legalize that which is now forbidden by the chains of the Constitution. At best, they would continue the trend of tampering with the balance of power, or give the feds authority, even in our bedrooms. We want to halt the march toward tyranny, or in the words of the creative accountants in our taxation offices, at least </B><B>slow the rate of its growth</B><B>.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Before we review three specific recently suggested constitutional changes, let's review the process of amending the constitution. This is key to understanding one angle of the `crisis of federalism,' as pundits are proposing institutional change as a method of `restoring the federalism balance.' Such changes are not necessary. This will heighten your awareness of the potential problem.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The Founding Fathers made provisions within the Constitution to enable amendments. They recognized that changing needs could necessitate governmental change, and that a Constitution so inflexible and rigid that could not adapt, would eventually create yet another revolution sometime in the future. Amendments can be proposed in two ways: the congressional amendment and a Constitutional convention. Here is Article V of the Constitution for the United States of America, in its entirety:</B></div> <bR> <div> <I><B>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>The original Constitutional convention gave us a framework for government without a Bill of Rights. On the insistence of the states, the first ten amendments were drafted and submitted for ratification. Those ten amendments, history has shown, were a very good idea.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Since the Bill of Rights, seventeen new amendments have been added. For a nation to survive over 200 years, and to only require that few number of changes, it seems the Constitution, as originally written, has served America well. In </B><B>all</B><B> instances, Congress proposed the needed changes, under Article V, and passed them to the states for their approval. A second Constitutional convention (Con-con) has never occurred.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>These amendments did various things, including correcting some discriminatory policies of the states (14th, 15th, 18th, 24th & 26th Amendments), realigning the dates Congress is in session (20th) and other minor mechanical changes. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>One amendment (the 18th) proved so unenforceable (alcohol prohibition) that it was repealed (by the 21st). In fact, that one amendment proves conclusively it requires a constitutional amendment for the federal government to come into the states to regulate any specific item not regulable under the terms of the Constitution. (How then can Congress mandate anything else within the states absent a specific amendment for each proposed regulation?)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The amendment process is simple. A member of Congress pens an idea into a proposed amendment. The proposal is voted on by the Congress. A proposal that passes by the required margin of 2/3 of the members of Congress is then submitted to the states for agreement (ratification). That process has been repeated for every change proposed since 1789. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Constitutional amendments proposed by Congress happen slowly. Once the states have the amendment in their legislatures for consideration, thorough debate occurs on the suggestion. That way, each change gets considered on its own merits. If public support and common sense favors the change, then it happens. The evidence supporting the proposed change must be overwhelming. Two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the states must approve. In other words, the idea better be a sound one if it has any chance for success.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>There are three significant constitutional amendment proposals floating about today. All three have their proponents and detractors, and all three seem to cut across the traditional `lines in the sand.'</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A BBA</B></div> <div> <B>The first significant proposal is a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). The concept is one that is hard to argue with at first glance. Both `liberals' and `conservatives' know Congress is fouling our nation with debt, and some significant problems are resulting. Proponents of a BBA neglect, however, the existing formula for raising revenue and extinguishing year-end deficits. Furthermore, since the 1970's, numerous proposed `Amendments' have been brought forward, and upon review, they all allow Congress `loopholes' to continue business-as-usual deficits. None address the Federal Reserve specifically, which as we have shown is a requirement if there is ever to be a balanced budget.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The BBAs which have been proposed in the past several years don't appear to have been written by a person whose true motive was a balanced federal budget. That explains why few people are taking any amendment seriously, and what is behind the "foot-dragging." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>In looking at the proposed amendments, it is the consensus of opinions of economists, lawyers, Congressmen, and other "experts" that the BBAs offered to date won't end deficit spending. While there have been too many amendments proposed to get into the specifics of each in this limited space, most of them have several things in common. </B></div> <div> <B>They, </B><B>fail to define key words,  allow deficits,  exclude borrowing and other  contributing factors, are based on predictions, upset the balance of power, and provisions of them supersede existing powers of Congress. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>LACK OF DEFINITIONS</B></div> <div> <B>For some bizarre reason, the proposed amendments usually fail to define key words. Knowing the semantic tactics of our lawyers on the Potomac, I am immediately suspicious of any amendment lacking ironclad wording. Congress should not be given the ability to make up the rules as they go. As an example, words like "receipt" and "outlay" can have their meanings change within the context of the amendment by a future act of Congress removing an item from the "official" budget and declaring it an "off-budget" item. The proposed amendments seen to date have such language in them, and don’t plug the holes.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>THEY ALLOW DEFICIT SPENDING</B></div> <div> <B>The proposed BBAs usually contain provisions giving Congress the ability to ignore the amendment. Would the bill of rights been ratified had a provision enabled Congress to suspend them? How easy would it be to get Congress to vote for big spending bills (circumventing a BBA) if such a loop-hole were created?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>EXCLUSION OF BORROWING</B></div> <div> <B>Deficit spending is caused by borrowing. There will never be a balanced federal budget as long as the Federal Reserve exists, and borrowing continues to finance last year's programs and cost overruns. The BBAs proposed to date exempt borrowed funds from being counted as a receipt; hence the maintenance of the status quo is inevitable. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>EXCLUSION OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS</B></div> <div> <B>Nothing in the proposed BBAs address the Federal Reserve. The Fed alone is the cause of inflation. Inflation contributes to budgetary problems. Deficits necessitate borrowing, which in turn results in accumulating debt, compounded by interest. Interest drains available revenue from circulation necessitating additional borrowing to make up for the shortfall. It is a devastating cycle that gets worse each year. All contributing factors--the Federal Reserve System, borrowing from it, interest payments to it, the practice of `monetizing' foreign debts through international bodies, the oppressive levels of inland excise taxes--all must be addressed by any budget balancing proposal. If not, a BBA will be impotent. ("Monetizing a debt" is the process of using the `commercial paper' of the creditor as the "reserve requirement" to justify the emission of paper "money." That exact process is the excuse for the Federal Reserve to cause paper to be printed for U.S. government obligations. Compounding our own budgetary problems is the scenario of the Fed "collateralizing" foreign debts with U.S. obligations, and then "monetizing" the foreign debt in the United States. For all intents and purposes, the budgets of foreign governments are being placed squarely on the back of the United States taxpayer. This is what the "professionals" are doing while you are allowing them to "handle" our monetary "needs." Any questions? If so, direct them to your Congressman.)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>PREDICATED ON PREDICTIONS</B></div> <div> <B>Under the proposed BBAs, Congress is given the power to predict the future. A budget that is "balanced" on paper, based on projected `receipts' and `outlays' (whatever they are), is constitutional as far as the amendment is concerned. If revenue fails to be generated as predicted, it would not effect the constitutionality of the resultant deficit. If spending is added at a later time in response to an "emergency" (whatever that is), the budget would need not be modified. Borrowing would therefore continue to be the solution to the borrowing problem, and `supplemental appropriations bills' will continue to be the preferred method of `sneaking' in pork. This same practice occurs in many states. Necessary items are left out to fund the pork up front, then necessities are tacked on as supplemental appropriations. Smoke and mirrors, prestidigitation, call it what you want. It is criminal politics in action.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>UPSET THE BALANCE OF POWER</B></div> <div> <B>The "escape clauses" (which allow deficits, interest and indiscriminate borrowing) are in contrast to the clear wording of the existing Constitution. The very language of the BBAs is confusing (according to State Senator Howard Dennis of Maryland, "an algebra formula"). The Constitution's original wording is concise. Adding a BBA to the Constitution would therefore allow the current dishonest and unaccountable practices of the Congress to continue unchecked. A return to the principles and original intent of the Constitution would end deficits. The proposed BBAs would, in fact, legalize that which is now forbidden by the Constitution, and shift the balance of power toward the federal government. To display the proper balance of power, all the people need do is to enforce that which now exists.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>SUPERCEDE THE EXISTING POWERS OF CONGRESS</B></div> <div> <B>There exists in the Constitution a power, an emergency power, to accomplish a balanced annual federal budget. That power, to impose an emergency direct tax on the states, is referred to elsewhere in this book as the rule of apportionment, and is identified publicly sometimes as the `Fair Share Method' or the `State Rate Tax.' (Many 3</B><B>rd</B><B> Parties are or have adopted this as their balanced budget proposal, and information about it is contained later in this book, and in the Appendix.) Its only purpose is to give Congress the mechanism by which to prevent year end or continually accumulating deficits. However, if any of the proposed BBAs, in their current forms, were to be adopted, this existing power would be, for all practical purposes, erased. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Much research has recently been devoted by patriots to exposing to public awareness the amazing realities of this seldom discussed power of Congress to quash deficits. After a BBA is passed, a judge ruling on a constitutional question about this power would likely say: "Yes, you are right. Congress </B><B>could have</B><B> balanced the budget using this power. However, since this amendment was adopted for the specific purpose of achieving a </B><B>planned</B><B> balanced budget, the previous powers are considered moot under the blanket of the amendment." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>BBA SUMMARY</B></div> <div> <B>Many groups and individuals support the notion of a BBA. Unfortunately, most who do are either unaware of, or they neglect, the ability Congress has to effect an annually balanced federal budget under the "State Rate Tax" (apportionment) method. Until now, this has been attributed to a general lack of public knowledge about Congress' monetary abilities under the provisions of the Constitution. Recent revelations of historical proofs now show conclusively a BBA is unnecessary–if members of Congress are compelled by the states to obey the Constitution they took an oath to uphold.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Why does anyone think that Congress will obey another amendment to the Constitution, when that body has consistently ignored its existing provisions, and more precisely, </B><B>its legislative intent</B><B>?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Passing a BBA (at least the ones seen thus far), would allow the current spend/borrow/tax policies of Congress to continue. Passage would jeopardize other Constitutional provisions, and would summarily fail to achieve the goal of a balanced annual federal budget. Other proposals offered by "budget conscious" Congressmen (read that–"tax and spend") only serve to add additional burdens to our industries and production base. In an economy already succumbing to the pressure of over-taxation, the question now is: "How much more can we bear?" </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>If you read the chapter on Banking, you will have a very good understanding of how our system is supposed to operate under the Constitution. You will need very little additional convincing that proposed BBAs using words like `unless' and `except' are colossal farces, at best. At worst, every BBA thus far proposed would in fact legalize that which is now forbidden.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>These proposed BBAs are dangerous toys in the hands of a Congress who epitomizes irresponsibility. They are subversive to the intent of the founders of this nation, positively will </B><B>not</B><B> cure the problems we now face as a nation, and are merely based on political vote catering to so-called conservatives who do not have a clue what is really going on. If you have read this book this far, you are much more prepared to argue this issue now. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>We need to promote a </B><B>budget balancing method</B><B>, not amendments. That method is found at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America, and is supported by the other pieces of documentation.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Many people are trying to convince the American public that a BBA is the only solution to the nation's budgetary dilemma. This has been done prior to answering the basic question: is the budgetary problem an institutional one requiring constitutional change, or is the problem a policy and procedural one whereby changing policy and/or the officials that make that policy would be a better answer to the problem? The reader is again encouraged to contact the American Constitutional Research Service (See "Check Them Out" in Chapter Six) and request information about the emergency `Fair Share Method' or `State Rate Tax' that sits in the history books waiting to be implemented.</B><B>124</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The majority of Americans trust their attorney-representatives and senators to understand the law and to propose workable solutions to our national problems of debt. Unfortunately it appears that neither the Congress nor the general public has enough knowledge of how our government is </B><B>supposed</B><B> to operate to even address the issue with a modicum of intelligence. The people believe the nightly news version, or the wording of the proposed BBAs will actually accomplish the desired end result. </B></div> <div> <B>Many also believe in Santa Claus.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Is Congress serious about limiting its own power? Get real.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Who really believes that any government official is going to be a knowing party to any measure that would limit his power? If anything, their "good intentions" must be carefully scrutinized for excuses to </B><B>increase</B><B> it!</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>LINE ITEM VETO (LIV)</B></div> <div> <B>Straight from the pages of England's handbook on Parliamentary government is the notion of a line-item veto. Under this provision, the President would have the ability to `cut' single items from Congress' revenue bills. This is supported seemingly across the board by both liberals and conservatives.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>At first glance, the line item veto seems a good way to give the President the power to eliminate any `pork' he finds in the budget. In reality, it gives the President powers to </B><B>encourage</B><B> pork.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>How? Imagine the power of a President with LIV authority. A congressman wants a new defense manufacturing facility built in his home district. The President simply targets that item as a `potential' cut, and immediately that congressman must lick the boots of his fearful master or his pet project is threatened.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The line-item veto amounts to transferring enormous powers of the purse to the executive, in complete and flagrant disregard for the separation of powers. It would encourage Congress to fund all sorts of items, in exchange for the favoritism the President will ask for in return for his support. No my friends, the line item veto is a MOST dangerous farce.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>TERM LIMITS</B></div> <div> <B>The final proposal we will address is the notion of imposing term limits on members of Congress. As with the other suggested changes to our United States Constitution, term limits viewed through traditional `liberal' and `conservative' eyes are a good thing. Viewed by the framers of the Constitution, reasonable doubt appears.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>When debating the length of time members of Congress would serve, the plan was drafted to have frequent elections in the U.S. House of Representatives. Simply put, people who serve in Washington were to have very close ties to home--to the economics and interests of their territories. Obviously, career politicians loose touch quickly. This is why there is already a two year election mandate, and members of Congress deemed out of sync with their districts should be retired by the constituencies thereof.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Term limits are a double edge sword. There are members of Congress who are very solid on the issues of their constituencies. Mandatory term limits would prevent voters from reelecting a good individual--just as they may achieve the beneficial result of retiring the NWO connected.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Our nation was founded on the principles of self government. Allowing the people the right to elect, or reelect, whomever they choose, is a solid foundation of republican government. Telling the public they cannot reelect a good congressmen by an arbitrary passage of time is simply a restriction on the minds of the people. It is another control by force. However desirable it may be to retire some hard-line anti-federalists, it must not be done at the expense of the liberty of the public to elect whomever they feel best represents their views. Better would be the concerted efforts of patriots to involuntarily retire by criminal prosecution those who would circumvent our Constitution's terms and conditions.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Very soon, the people will begin electing constitutionists to Congress. Let's not create an unwarranted situation whereby good members of Congress will be forcibly retired. Our focus should be working during the campaigns to retire at the ballot box those who are not acting in the interests of the people. Those who have been in Congress with an utter disregard for the principles identified in the Federalist Papers, should be voted out–even if they have only been there two years.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>When the most recent term limit constitutional amendment proposal came up before Congress, many of the five-plus term members voted </B><B>for</B><B> the amendment. Who are they trying to kid? If that crowd wanted to make a statement in favor of term limits, they should simply resign! (Truth is, they knew well in advance what the final vote would be prior to casting it, and enough of them "supported" the idea to make themselves </B><B>appear</B><B> conservative in the eyes of their constituencies. Bah! We are educated to some degree in this nation, not total idiots! </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>America would be far better off without the vast majority of the long-term members now in office. I put together some "Vote'em Out" pamphlets as part of LEADERS a few years back, and surveyed the voting records of five-plus term members to ascertain how they voted on key Constitution-related issues in the past ten years. Only nine out of 189 members surveyed [4.8%] scored 80% or better. [43.4% of the House has been in office 5+ terms!] Only two members scored 90%, and none voted in conformity to the Constitution 100% of the time!</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>SUMMARY</B></div> <div> <B>Numerous proposals exist today that are not as desirable as the `conservatives' would have us believe. These include the notions for a balanced budget amendment, a line item veto amendment, and a constitutional amendment dictating term limits. The BBA would be useless, the line item veto would erode the separation of powers even further–transferring dangerous powers of the purse to the President, and term limits would be ill advised because the people already have a way to VOTE OUT their Congressmen every two or six years. (The state legislatures should monitor the United States Senate, and advise the people of their state accordingly on their performance.) </B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION</B></div> <div> <B>The desire for a Constitutional convention can be founded on only two ideas. First, there could be an agenda to put aside what the Founding Fathers created. Secondly, a complete misunderstanding of the language of the Constitution could cause people to support concepts (like the BBA, LIV, Term Limits, etc.) which would not be in their best interest. The convention is also promoted as a way to "restore federalism." Both are sick reasons for a venture into a Constitutional convention (Con-con).</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Promoters of a convention today cite `problems with federalism' as the rationale to have a convention. Do they have ulterior motives? Is the public so ignorant of the Constitution that they believe whatever the nightly news tells them? Sadly, both appear to be true.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Today the winds of change are blowing. The people recognize that, for some reason, the federal government has outstepped its constitutional boundaries. Christians are even being herded into the push for constitutional change for such items as an amendment precluding gay marriages. (As previously noted herein, marriage is [or should be] neither a federal nor a state regulatory [licensing] matter. That institution is properly governed entirely by the churches, and at the Higher level, by God and the couple. Making a ‘federal’ matter of it is inviting all sorts of separation of Church & state problems!)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It is increasingly obvious that the majority of Americans are fed up to their 1040's with the federal government. Using the `crisis of federalism' as a rallying call for `conservative reforms,' the promoters of a convention have moved dangerously close to opening pandora's box. If a convention is opened, not one amendment at a time, but the entire Constitution would be laid on a surgical table for review and/or elimination in favor of a `21</B><B>st</B><B> century Ivy League' version. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A convention shall be convened by Congress when two-thirds of the states petition as such. With 50 states, that means thirty-four must do so. Over two-hundred years have passed since the last Constitutional convention met in Philadelphia. Today, we stand on the verge of a second.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Ever since the 1700's various states have called, at one time or another, for a Constitutional convention. A real push began in 1974.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The momentum began fizzling out though when the American people began to balk at the thoughts of major surgery on the framework that had preserved them for so long. Various special interest groups have been identified as having agendas not consistent with their rhetoric. No other states, despite repeated attempts to do so, were able to get Con-con calling resolutions through since the 1980's. Three states passed resolutions repealing their earlier calls for a convention. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</B></div> <div> <B>CHECK THEM OUT! </B></div> <div> <B>Eagle Forum </B></div> <div> <B>P.O. Box 618</B></div> <div> <B>Alton, IL 62002 </B></div> <div> <B>www.eagleforum.org</B></div> <div> <B>Eagle Forum is another "conservative" (i.e. constitutional) organization who has been working overtime to protect against the unknowns of a Con-con. In addition, Eagle Forum is a very strong profamily organization. It is headed by nationally known syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly, and provides wonderful literature, legislative information, family rights, home schooling, and similar subject matter.</B><B> </B><B>The newest notion for constitutional change would provide Governors with the ability to appoint members to Congress in an "emergency." Phyllis is part of a coalition formed to hold that notion at bay.</B></div> <div> <B>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Although being brought to the brink of institutional change, the Congress has failed to respond to the sense of urgency felt among the people and the states. The calls for a convention cited the need for Congress to get its fiscal house in order by balancing the federal budget. Congress should have been terrified at the thought of the states playing with power like that. Why were they not? The answer could only be that, as a body, Congress would welcome a modern convention, with the public ignorance factor so high. They could walk out even more omnipotent!</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Some groups are not advocating a return to limited national government the way the rhetoric of Con-con promoters would leave one to believe. One such group, the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), suggested a platform of "reforms" to be made in the form of constitutional amendments. While the CCS does not claim to advocate a Constitutional convention to achieve these changes, the CCS says they will be ready if one is convened. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>What changes do they want? </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>CCS changes would give the President the power to:  d</B><B>eclare "no confidence" in Congress and force an unscheduled congressional election; Appoint congressmen to his cabinet (eliminating the requirement that they first resign their congressional seat); Appoint members of his cabinet to Congress; To appoint one additional congressman for every five duly elected.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Other Proposals would:</B></div> <div> <B>1.  </B><B>Run candidates on a party slate (Voters would therefore vote for party, not for any individual candidate based on his qualifications.) </B></div> <div> <B>2.  Restructure the terms of office from 2 years to 4 years for representatives, and from 6 to 8 years for senators; </B></div> <div> <B>3.  Repeal the two term limit for a President to hold office. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The program of CCS "reforms" is outlined in their book "Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System." </B><B>125</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The changes the CCS proposes would create a Parliamentary system of government. Would those changes improve the political climate of America, or restore state soverignity? You have got to be joking!</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Under the auspices of balancing the federal budget, a second Constitutional convention could be convened in the very near future--if the needed states ratify calls to Congress for one. The CCS could achieve `reforms' that would create an entirely foreign form of government. Do their suggestions seem like desirable `reforms?'</B></div> <div> <B>Other proposals are floating around as well. Indeed the radical left has many "draft" new constitutions ready and waiting for a convention to open the door to more "modern" ideas in government. </B><B>126</B><B> Of course, these ideas are not new. But they are ready, the first chance they get.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>125 "Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System" Edited by Donald L. Robinson. Boulder Westview Press, 1985.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>126 See also the proposed "Constitution for the Newstates of America" found in "The Emerging Constitution" by Rexgord G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974) Available on the Internet at: ~comminc/Constitution_1.html"</B><B>http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/Constitution_1.html</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Many claim that opening a Constitutional convention today could bring on a national crisis of equal or greater repercussions than the Civil War. Why? Because of the unknowns.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The United States is considered a safe haven for foreign investment, and many billions of dollars (maybe not `dollars,' but investment paper, nonetheless) flow into America annually. A Constitutional convention could easily trigger a sudden reversal in that trend. Foreign investors would not know what kind of government might emerge from a convention. They would therefore feel their funds to be in jeopardy and take steps to remove massive quantities of cash from circulation suddenly.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>After the convention of 1787, when talk was brewing of holding yet another convention, Madison warned against it. Holland had recently loaned America money to keep it solvent, and Europeans feared a convention would negate that loan by some new procedure. Madison stated:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper of America ...the prospect of a second convention would be viewed by all of Europe as a dark cloud hanging over the Constitution."</B><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#990033" FACE="Arial" ><B>Letter to George Turberville from James Madison, 1787</B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>The prospect of opening a Con-con in today’s climate immediately calls into question the financial impact of a Con-con on Wall Street, in Tokyo, in London, and in the investment centers of the world. With billions of foreign investment money in the United States today, how would international investors view the prospects of an event which could alter the financial structure of the United States? How would foreign investors view a convention `in the current temper of America?'</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>All things considered, this is the one aspect of calling for a Con con that bothers me almost as much as the prospects of scrapping the bill of rights. The `giant sucking sound' might come from the fast withdraw of investment funds from banks and companies in these United States. A depression would likely result. Such a depression would cause the people to willingly accept any promise of food that a new government would make. In fact, the people would probably forget everything they knew about freedom in such a time of crisis (much as they did during the vacuum of money leaving the USA in the 1930's, which permitted Roosevelt’s promise of "two chickens in every pot" to be graciously accepted, even with the corresponding loss of liberties that accompanied it).</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>That is but one negative aspect of opening a convention in the 21</B><B>st</B><B> Century. </B></div> <div> <B>Is supporting the concept of a convention the same as supporting the concept of balancing the federal budget, as promoters of a convention assert? Historical evidence indicates that Congress has it completely within its powers to effect an annually balanced budget. Therefore a convention is completely unwarranted on that basis.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution of the United States. Miracles do not cluster; what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution; for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world." </B><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#990033" FACE="Arial" ><B>Daniel Webster, 1851</B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>The Constitution has served America well for over 200 years. It provided the means by which amendments could be proposed and debated one at a time, so that any and all changes would have to be reviewed by the states and agreed to by three-fourths thereof. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A Constitutional convention has inherent risks. Although the debate will continue to rage over whether a convention can be limited to a single issue like balancing the federal budget, there is another issue on the minds of the states. The paradox: the only way to find out if a convention will be limited is to have one. That is a dangerous experiment. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Many state legislators now realize this as a result of tremendous grass-roots pressure being applied. Despite repeated attempts to pass Con-con calling resolutions, all recent efforts have been thwarted. The people realize the state legislatures themselves can be bypassed in the ratification process if Congress declares state conventions are to be used to ratify proposed changes. Conventions would operate totally outside the public election process, and could theoretically be picked by the dominant party or power structure of each state! A federal Constitutional convention is a dangerous experiment indeed!</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Reproduced in the Appendix of this book is a model resolution to be introduced in states across America to repeal existing state calls for a Constitutional convention. Present it to your state legislators, and let's end this potential threat to freedom.</B></div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>