Con Con Q & A

<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>   |   <A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Con Con Info"><U>Con Con Info</U></A>   |   <B>Con Con Q & A</B>   |   <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> <B><IMG SRC="07ab4640.gif" border=0 width="180" height="100" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></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 Q & A</I></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>CON-CON Q & A:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Following are some commonly asked questions concerning the proposal for a Constitutional convention. (Excerpted from "White Paper On The Constitutional Convention, prepared by LIBERTY LOBBY, 300 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20003. The author of `</B><B>Downsizing Government</B><B>,' Harold W. Bolinger, collaborated on this work with Trisha Katson, former Legislative Director of Liberty Lobby, and Gardiner Rogers, former Board of Policy Chairman.)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>HOW DOES A CONVENTION OPERATE? </B></div> <div> <B>A convention will consist of delegates presenting proposals to modify, alter, amend or change our U.S. Constitution. It will be an opportunity for delegates to toy with new ideas for American governance. Any part of the Constitution is fair game in a convention. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The bill of rights, the separation of powers, the electoral system, the terms of office for elected officials--all of these and more will be subject to change or elimination when the doors of a convention close behind the delegates. The proceedings will, most likely, be conducted in secret, as was the case in the convention of 1787. What changes will be made in the government of the United States is limited only by the minds of the participants. Does America really need a `secret meeting' of political insiders performing surgery on the Constitution?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>FACT: The Congressional amendment process limits change to one issue at a time. All proposals therefore have time to be debated, argued, and extensively studied before they are either ratified or rejected. Because no limitations can be placed on a convention, the entire Constitution is exposed to radical surgery when a convention is opened. Clearly, the risk of ill-conceived change is far greater, and even the Bill of Rights could be reduced to the level of a bargaining chip on the convention table. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>WHO WILL BE THE DELEGATES TO A CONVENTION? </B></div> <div> <B>Practically every special interest group in the world will be lobbying for rights to attend a convention. The Constitution itself offers no guidelines. It seems safe to assume those able to exert the largest degree of influence on those who hold the keys to the convention will be the individuals who will ultimately decide the form of government a convention might create. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Also, there is the question of how the delegates will be chosen. Presumably, each state will set its own rules since there are no established guidelines. If Congress passes its own Con con implementation bill, and follows the rule of apportionment, then California would be allowed to send 45 delegates, while Wyoming, for example, would only be able to send one. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Certainly, that rule would place an unfair advantage in favor of the large states. If the rule of each state having the ability to send two delegates were to be used, the small states would have the advantage. Power plays in the rules process will cause much contention and strife where the selection of delegates is concerned. This will likely start the convention out on a sour note, not unlike the problems which were encountered in the 1787 convention which led to the "great compromise" and the creation of a bicameral Congress (having two houses) with the states represented in the Senate, and the people in the House.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A key factor to keep in mind is that currently no rules exist. By calling for a convention prior to the establishment of guidelines, many questions remain unanswered. Will Congress pass an implementation bill, and if passage occurs once a Con con has already begun, would it stand up to a legal challenge?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>FACT: Currently there are a number of groups aligned with radical factions whose agendas could be adopted at a convention. It has been discovered that although some of these groups are using "conservative" rhetoric to quiet fears about a convention, they, in fact, have agendas of their own to accomplish in a convention. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>WHERE WILL THE CONVENTION BE HELD? </B></div> <div> <B>Here again, no guidelines exist in the Constitution. As with other aspects of a convention, the powers that be will make that determination after the 34th state has called for a convention. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>WHY IS A CONVENTION DESIRED? </B></div> <div> <B>There are two answers to that question depending to whom you are talking. Supporters of a convention often cite the inability of Congress to deal with matters relating to balancing the federal budget. They believe that since Congress is reluctant to make the hard choices necessary to cut spending, or to agree on a particular amendment to submit to the states for ratification, corrective state action is necessary. The holders of this notion neglect the abilities the states have to correct irresponsible actions of their Congressional delegations. These abilities are ALREADY A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The second answer you are likely to hear is that under our Constitution, cooperation between the President and the Congress is difficult because of the separation of powers built into the structure of our government. The framers knew what they were doing. They knew that a corroboration of branches could result in tyranny, hence there is a need to keep the branches separate and distinct. Our system of "checks and balances" is carefully intertwined by precise wording and skillfully thought out plans for the operation of government. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The groups who support a convention on the grounds that the branches of government should "cooperate" with each other (rather than keep a jealous eye on the activities of the other branches) ignore the true causes which led to the formation of the union. These groups are proposing ideas for changing American government that are literally the reverse of the protections given us by the Founding Fathers. They would have us believe the lack of cooperation between the branches of government is the cause of our budgetary strife. They neglect the realities of the process and the temptations of office while proposing solutions far worse than the problems. </B></div> <div> <B>A Con con will jeopardize every American's rights and freedoms under the Constitution. Is any political ambition worth risking our Bill of Rights to obtain? What freedoms are you willing to sacrifice in the name of a balanced federal budget? If the Constitution already provides the means by which to effect a balanced federal budget (as it must for the U.S. routinely had surpluses in the first 150 years of its history), then is a convention justified, or is our current budgetary crisis a contrived smoke screen by which those who don't like the limitations the Constitution imposes can change the things they deem "inconveniences"? Could a convention be part of a plot whereby the agendas of special interest groups could be adopted as public policy? </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>IS IT SAFE TO ASSUME THAT A CONVENTION WOULD LIMIT ITSELF TO THE SINGLE ISSUE OF BALANCING THE FEDERAL BUDGET? </B></div> <div> <B>A better question to ask would be: "What single issue?" One can easily see that the budget is not one item, but a mass of hundreds of programs including monetary and trade policy, taxation, social welfare programs, categorical grants, student aid, defense appropriations, social security, foreign aid, community grants, and no less than hundreds of other worthwhile or controversial programs that the Congress has involved itself in. In convention, all of the above, and more, go on the chopping block. (Not that most of the above shouldn't be chopped . . . but the convention is </B><B>NOT</B><B> the proper way to handle it.)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Congress must call a convention upon receiving applications from 2/3 of the states. If thirty-four states ask for a limited convention, a convention will be opened. However, the convention will also be attended by delegates from the 16 other states which have not asked for a convention, limited or otherwise. It is very safe to assume that these states are under no binding agreement to limit the scope of what their delegates could propose at a convention. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Similarly, the states could even charge their delegates with the duty to explore other issues. The scope of these debates could be, as stated before, limited only by the minds of the participants. Because no guidelines exist, constitutional or statutory, it is unwise to assume anything.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>CAN THE CONGRESS MANDATE A ONE ISSUE CONVENTION? </B></div> <div> <B>As noted, there is no single issue where the budgetary matters of Congress are concerned. Even if there were, no Constitutional authority exists for Congress to attempt to limit the scope of a convention. History shows that although the Continental Congress attempted to limit the scope of the 1787 convention, the delegates ignored the commands of Congress and their states.</B></div> <div> <B>The convention of 1787 considered itself above the authority of Congress, since they were making changes in the form of government that were beyond the purview of Congress. They considered themselves agents of the states which had created the federal government in the first place. Hence, they were superior to the creation, being agents of the creators.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>If Congress were to pass a law to limit the scope of a convention, the delegates would not likely be bound to obey it. In 1985 a proposal was introduced into Congress in the form of an act to establish procedures for implementing a Con con. The act was never passed into law because, as statements of Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) In Senate Report 99-135 reflect:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"The purpose of this legislation is to minimize the possibility that a Constitutional convention called on a particular subject will turn into a convention that will put the entire Constitution at risk. No one can be certain that this legislation, or any legislation, can accomplish that purpose. Indeed, some of this Nation's foremost Constitutional scholars have expressed to the (Judiciary) Committee their opinion that Congress cannot statutorily limit a convention. I have joined in supporting S-40 for the simple reason that if a Constitutional convention is called on a particular subject, it is important that Congress do its utmost to keep such a convention from turning into an open ended convention that would threaten the soundness and stability of our Constitution.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"The Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1985 is not intended to encourage state legislatures to apply for a Constitutional convention. Nor should S-40 be interpreted to express an opinion on the part of the Judiciary Committee that a Constitutional convention is desirable. Indeed, I have great reservations about the wisdom of convening a Constitutional convention." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>HOW WOULD THE PRODUCT OF A CONVENTION BE RATIFIED? </B></div> <div> <B>According to Article V, it could be ratified in one of two ways. The legislatures of the states could do it, or state conventions could have the authority. Conventions could be made up of some of the writers of the new document, or others with enough clout to be made a part of the ratification convention. However, both of these maxims assume that Article V itself survives the double con. In convention, the ratification process itself could be changed to make a big spending, foreign sympathetic Congress the ratifying body. What if? That is a question few Con-con promoters would try to answer. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>FACT: Henry Hazlitt, National Taxpayers Union advisor and author of "A New Constitution Now,"</B><B>129</B><B> stated: </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"An amendment to the Constitution could be proposed that would strike out everything after the paragraph `We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.' This amendment could be in itself an entirely new Constitution . . ."</B></div> <div> <B>"A New Constitution Now" Henry Hazlitt, NY, McGraw (1942); 2</B><B>nd</B><B> edition Arlington House, 1974.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Would we allow the current breed of self-serving politicians the opportunity, in a convention, to mold the shape of government to suit the situation? How can we consciously give them the opportunity to rewrite the rule book when they have shown their inability to follow existing rules? </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The idea that calling for a convention is the same as supporting the concept that our national legislature needs to balance its budget is not only wrong, it is dangerous. It is a thought created by people who do not like the chains of the Constitution; and/or people who have ideas for structural changes in our form of government that would be more suitable for their purposes. Many of these changes would legalize that which is forbidden by the Constitution in its current form. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Many state legislators, when questioned, stated that when they originally passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional convention, they had no idea that they were endorsing a resolution which could open the Constitution for the United States of America to radical surgery. They honestly believed they were asking Congress to balance the budget. Why? </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>MYTHS & REALITY: BAIT AND SWITCH </B></div> <div> <B>A classic political tactic is being used to get state legislators to support concept `A' resulting in their unwittingly supporting concept `B.' Concept `A' in this case is a balanced budget amendment. Concept `B' is the call for a convention. </B></div> <div> <B>Supposedly, the "threat of a convention" is what will force Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment. The question which has not been asked or answered is whether or not an amendment is necessary. Legislators have been lied to with two very innocent sounding claims. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>#1. THE THREAT OF A CONVENTION WILL FORCE CONGRESS TO ACT. </B></div> <div> <B>Nothing could be further from the truth. If Congress was afraid of a convention, it would have already submitted an amendment to the states. Since 1983, this nation has been on the verge of a convention. Any fears Congress would have had with respect to a convention should have materialized by now. It is rather largely in favor of a convention, as the restrictions on its conduct could be removed. A Congress now so controlled by powerful special interests is unlikely to suddenly act against these interests who favor a convention, and those interests will certainly work hard to control the agenda of a convention with so much at stake.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>#2. AFTER 34 STATES HAVE CALLED FOR A CONVENTION, THE STATES COULD REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN A CONVENTION OR RESCIND THEIR CALLS FOR A CONVENTION. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>He who would assert a state would refuse to participate in a convention that takes up other issues is making a statement not unlike the man who claims to go to the ball park for the "specific and exclusive purpose" of buying a hot dog. If a ball game breaks out, he promises his wife to come home immediately.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>When members of the New York delegation believed the convention of 1787 was beginning to exceed its authority, some of them simply left. So what? The Articles of Confederation were scrapped, a new form of government was created, and it happened without the participation of disgusted members from New York. </B></div> <div> <B>Furthermore, he who would assert a state could rescind its call for or participation in a convention after the requisite number of states have called is without historical, legal, constitutional, precedental or other actual authority to make this assertion. There is simply no basis whatsoever for this claim. Congress is commanded by Article V to call a convention upon the application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the several states. They have no option. If any state would attempt to rescind its call after the 34th state has called for a convention, the rescission would likely be held invalid, or at best the convention would happen without their input. It is a door which once opened will likely never be shut. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>". . . That confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism: free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go . . . In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."</B><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#990033" FACE="Arial" ><B>Thomas Jefferson from the Kentucky Resolution of 1798. </B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>THE CON-CON PROMOTERS </B></div> <div> <B>The promoters of a Constitutional convention fall into two subgroups: </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A. The organized and well-financed groups who have agendas to promote in a convention; and </B></div> <div> <B>B. The people who believe one of the stories sponsored by the leadership of convention-promoting groups. </B></div> <div> <B>We will now examine the groups which are actively organized to promote either the opening of a convention or the special agendas they have planned for a convention if one is ultimately opened. These are the folks who are asking us to align ourselves on a given side of the issue of balancing the federal budget.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>There are two main organizations promoting changes in our Constitution. These groups, which were mentioned earlier in this report, represent both "conservative" and "liberal" lines of thought. </B><B>131</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Note: Much of this was written and the original writing remains unchanged since the author worked it up in 1988. The names of contemporary promoters of a convention may have changed, but the desire for a convention among </B><B>many people</B><B>, including Lloyd Cuttler, has not (see also the Committee to Preserve an Elected Congress, headed by Phyllis Schlafly, at </B><B>http://www.electcongress.org</B><B>)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>THE COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM </B></div> <div> <B>Many members of the CCS represent a profoundly left-wing or `liberal' view. It is co-chaired by Former U.S. Senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.); C. Douglas Dillon, former Secretary of the Treasury; and Lloyd Cutler, a high power CFR member and Washington lawyer who likes to represent presidents of the United States.</B></div> <div> <B>James MacGregor Burns, a member of the board of directors of the CCS, wrote a book in 1984 entitled "The Power to Lead." In it he stated that the Founding Fathers created divisions of power that could not be...</B></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#990033" FACE="Arial" ><B>"unified by mechanical linkages . . . If we are to turn the founders upside down . . . we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected."</B></FONT><B> </B><B>"The Power To Lead" James M. Burns, 1984 p. 160</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Obviously Mr. Burns doesn't like the system of checks and balances the Founding Fathers devised in order to prevent tyranny. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The notion of calling a Constitutional convention is a plot to change our Constitutional republic. It could (and probably would) legalize that which is now forbidden, and in the words of Professor Burns, "turn the founders upside down." Proposals to modify our form of government in this manner would be tantamount to rewriting our Constitution and attaching the title "Parliamentary Democracy of America" in place of our existing republic. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The CCS is made up of highly influential people--many members of other influential `clubs.' Network media executives, ranking political figures, multinational corporation executives and others compose the membership of the CCS. These people are quite capable of molding public opinion to be just what they want it to be through their many resources. Their efforts to change the Constitution by publicizing the kind of issues appealing to the majority of blue and white-collar Americans (balancing the federal budget, for example) have been highly successful. A large measure of that success is due to the large financial base and patriotic rhetoric employed by . . . </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>THE NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION </B></div> <div> <B>The "cooperating antithesis" of the CCS is the NTU, an organization which purports to be a lobby working in the interest of the taxpayers of the U.S. To promote the concept of a BBA, which is the adopted position of the NTU, Jim Davidson</B><B>133</B><B>, NTU chairman, is promoting the concept of a convention. He hopes to be a delegate to a convention and sincerely believes he will be if one is ultimately convened. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The current head of the National Taxpayers Union is John Berthoud. This piece was written in 1988. Whether or not the NTU is promoting a Con con today is uncertain.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>At one time Davidson was cautious about publicly revealing his real ambition: achieving the first Constitutional convention in the history of the U.S. since 1787. To his disadvantage he brazenly testified that he does not oppose a Con-con and that it doesn't make any difference to him whether it is limited to one issue.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>His advisor, Henry Hazlitt,</B><B>134</B><B> wrote the book from which the plans of the CCS were taken. "A New Constitution Now" supports the idea that a parliamentary government would be a preferable system of government for America. Davidson, himself a graduate of Oxford University in England, may not have the interest of the American taxpayer at heart (as he professes).</B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Hazlitt does not currently appear on the roster of NTU staff. Source: </B><B>http://www.ntu.org/main/staff.php</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Davidson attended Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. Cecil Rhodes, founder of the scholarship program, was a man who, in his time, wanted the United States to again fall under possession of the British crown. Many Rhodes scholars active in this nation have displayed an obsessive infatuation with British-style parliamentary government. (Former President Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar also, in addition to his membership in the other aforementioned `club'-- the CFR.)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Mr. Davidson is obviously not concerned with the reality that under a BBA, Congress will continue to borrow as usual. With a background of British government knowledge and an advisor like Henry Hazlitt (who advocates scrapping the Constitution in favor of a parliamentary form of government) behind him, is it so hard to believe that the NTU could be promoting a hidden agenda masked by the hoopla surrounding the issue of balancing the federal budget?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It is also worthy of note that another link exists between the NTU and the CCS. One CCS director, former Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh, has also been the co-director of the NTU front group Citizens In Support of a Balanced Budget Amendment.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"Our government is suffering from a division of authority, a paralysis between the executive and Congress . . . A parliamentary system is much more flexible." </B><B>J. William Fulbright, former Arkansas senator </B></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#990033" FACE="Arial" ><B>The National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC) has also been actively promoting a convention using the same basic strategy as the NTU, and works with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).  </B></FONT><B>NTLC: </B><B>http://www.limittaxes.org/about.asp</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>SECTION C: PROPOSAL FOR A "CONFERENCE OF STATES"</B></div> <div> <B>Since the momentum for a Constitutional convention, under that name, has apparently fizzled, those who seek institutional changes to the federal Constitution have taken a new route. There is now a movement afoot to call a "Conference of States" (COS) through a device called a "State's Petition." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Again, this was written in 1988, with a few minor updates in 1995. The "State’s Petition" idea was also resolutely defeated, after the Constitution’s protectors, like Eagle Forum and others, caught wind of that attempt.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Proponents of COS are attempting to circumvent the Article V two-thirds rule by asking for the `conference' upon the application of the legislatures of 26 states (a bare majority). They feel that under the 10th Amendment, the states can abolish the federal government at will, and cite constitutional scholars who sound the federalism crisis horns through the media at the snap of their bosses fingers.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The COS plan parallels the march toward a new Constitution mobilized by the states in 1787. The promoters want a majority of states (not the 2/3rd rule of Article V) to get together. They seek delegates to be appointed by the states giving them lawful authority by the legislature to propose changes to the Constitution. The proposed by-laws of the Conference gives it authority to set its own agenda, and to submit the changes directly to the states for ratification.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The Conference of States is being promoted primarily by two people (with the support of a number of organizations), Governors Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mike Leavitt of Utah. </B><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#990033" FACE="Arial" ><B>Neither of these two are still in their governor offices.</B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>Nelson and Leavitt cite as their reason for suggesting COS their concern over imbalances in the state-federal relationship. While no one in their right mind would argue the federal government is today a beast, it does not take a Rhodes Scholar to see that the two "front line" supporters of COS do not put their money where their mouths are.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Utah's Governor Mike Leavitt and Nebraska's Governor Ben Nelson have been on the COS campaign trail for months. While their rhetoric (and media trumpets) would have one believe they are ardent opponents of federal intervention into the affairs of the sovereign states, their track records prove otherwise.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Every taxpayer knows that federal funds come with federal strings attached. Why would two governors, who purport to be champions of states rights, oversee the importation to their states of millions of federal `dollars,' and their inherent federal mandates and restrictions? Why would two so-called "champions of states" rights allow Congress to export monies from their states outside the constitutional rule of apportionment?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>An example: Utah has been given $2.6 million under a federal program called "Goals 2000." The Clinton Administration's ambition to make your children "globally competent" through the schools set up this program and its funding, so long as the states receiving the money comply with the federal restrictions attached with it. (Leavitt was even on the panel that helped compose the program!)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Would a champion of state's rights agree to such a program? At a time when the American people have had enough of federal mandates, why would a person who truly wants to "restore a balance of power" between the states and the federal government lock his State into yet another federal program? </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Even more convoluted is submitting the children of Utah to an education program teaching them about the benefits of world government. That seems counterproductive to a state's rights advocate. Far better would the money be spent teaching children to be self governing, independent, and able to function in society. A true state's rights advocate would prefer to see an emphasis on educating children about the principles of the United States Constitution, and the history of the prosperity of America under the federal system as it existed before Congress went `program crazy.'</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>But maybe Governor Leavitt would like to use the Conference of States to achieve a more "global" agenda? </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It is also interesting to note that Governor Leavitt was appointed by Clinton to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). According to the United States Government Manual, the ACIR falls into the category of "Boards, Commissions and Committees." These animals `were established by congressional or presidential action' and `are authorized to publish documents in the Federal Register.'</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>How is it possible for a person to serve two masters? If Leavitt is to be a federal agent by virtue of his role with the ACIR, how can he hold an office of trust to represent the people of his State as Governor?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>This is a conflict of interest at the most ludicrous level. The ACIR has, for years, been pushing an agenda aimed at driving the states deeper into the federal web. It concocts and publishes `sample resolutions' that can be introduced into state legislatures to foster the continued growth of the federal government </B><B>at the expense of</B><B> states rights.</B></div> <div> <B>Nebraska's Governor Ben Nelson has also overseen the importation to his state of millions in federal aid (at extreme cost to the taxpayers). The mechanisms for delivering highway funding, welfare funding, housing construction funding, etc. are all illegal under the existing constitutional formula for distributing federal monies. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>If Governors Nelson and Leavitt were truly concerned about the relationships of the states to the federal government, both would immediately suspend the importation of federal `monies' into their states. These monies increase the cost of doing business, result in higher taxes, and further erode the separation of powers between the levels of government.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A "Conference of States" with official delegations moves dangerously close to lawful authority to tamper with the Constitution and its separation of powers. It makes sense that those who seek to further erode the Constitution need a lawful mechanism for change. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>COS is not a debate about how to achieve a proper balance between the states and the federal government. It is a </B><B>PLOT</B><B> to change the Constitution by people who are NOT concerned about states' rights.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>There are several primary groups promoting the COS agenda. They include the National Conference of State Legislatures,</B><B>138</B><B> the National Governors Association,</B><B>139</B><B> and the American Legislative Exchange Council.</B><B>140</B><B> These COS promoting groups are already </B><B>informal</B><B> gatherings of state leaders who assemble to discuss mutual concerns. They could help "restore the federalism balance" by promulgating an end to federal fiscal insanity and illegal federal actions with numerous resources already at their disposal. Instead, they are promoting </B><B>institutional</B><B> change in a most deceptive way.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>http://www.ncsl.org/</B></div> <div> <B>http://www.nga.org/</B></div> <div> <B>http://www.alec.org/</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>SUMMARY</B></div> <div> <B>Supporters of a Constitutional convention base their arguments on supposition and hearsay; supported by nothing more substantial than someone else's opinion. No matter how educated that opinion may be, it is still opinion. If certain issues were ever brought before the United States supreme Court, it is likely that any decisions would follow the command of the powerful special interest clubs that supersede our own government officials.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>There exists a serious threat to our liberties. Many groups and individuals are displeased with our republican form of government and its inherent limitations. It is not simply a few isolated groups who want structural change, either. Virtually the entire Establishment is focused on this debate. The media, along with the think tank "experts" and bureaucrats, all want the American people to believe the reason for the current paralytic state of Congress lies in flaws in our government's structure. We're told the legislative and executive branches must "work more closely" together in order to get anything done. A simple reading of the Federalist Papers will contradict that thought nicely.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Congress wastes a lot of time on issues which center on this conflict between the legislative and executive branches. Some of the more notable examples included the "Iran-Contra" affair and the federal budget process. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>As Americans and lovers of liberty, we must remember the words of former statesmen who warned us not to trust folks in government with our liberties. Certain restricted areas are forever off limits to public officials so long as the Constitution is the law of the land. By permitting a convention to be opened, however, we are subjecting all our protected liberties to change or elimination. The supporters of a convention are trying to convince us that the worst cannot happen. Their "facts" are unsupported by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Former U.S. Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland (a elite member of `the club') once stated: </B></div> <div> <B>"The state legislatures that have called for a Constitutional convention are playing with fire." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Former U.S. Senator Charles Mathias @ pp.63, Supplemental Views, Report #99-135, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>His comment begs the question: "In a convention, what is likely to burn?" The right to bear arms? The right to freely assemble? What about freedom of speech?</B></div> <div> <B>We, as a nation, have a history of jealously guarding our rights and liberties. If the majority of Americans became aware of the plot to wreck the Constitution, there would be an uprising.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>1983 was the last year when a Con-con resolution passed both houses of a state legislature. The people became aware that not only is a convention potentially dangerous, but the purpose for which it is being called (to propose a balanced budget amendment) is a farce. The change to a Conference of States strategy was a politically sound one for the promoters of constitutional change. Luckily, the people caught on very fast to this ill-advised notion also. (Although in 1995, 14 states passed COS resolutions. Patriots mobilized quickly enough to defeat the proposal in </B><B>every other state</B><B> where introduced, however.)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>STATE ACTION IN PROGRESS </B></div> <div> <B>The battle lines have been drawn. Legislators in the state capitols realize they should have a say in the budgetary process. They have been duped by the National Taxpayer's Union, the National Conference of State Legislatures, etc. ad nauseam to believe a Con-con, COS, or "State's Petition" is necessary to `restore federalism.' These people suffer from one of two diseases: either they are constitutionally ignorant (curable), or they have an ulterior motive (a terminal disease for which the only cure would be removal from office). If they lack the Constitutional knowledge of measures used in past times of crisis, a copy of this book might help them. If not, an indictment--or at least a vacation sponsored by the voters--is the only answer.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Corrective action in the states will require the immediate attention of every able-bodied American. Legislators must be made aware of both the dangers of a convention, and the readily accessible solutions to the federalism crisis right under their noses. Resolutions to rescind convention calls must be introduced and passed immediately to protect our Constitution from the unknowns of a convention, and to preserve the freedoms we have known for over 200 years. A return to the principles of the Constitution will protect us for 200 more!</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Just as they have memorialized Congress to open a Con con or a Conference of States, the fifty sovereign states could petition their respective congressional delegations to obey the existing Constitutional provisions related to balancing the federal budget in emergency situations. Any time a deficit occurs, it is a national emergency. The only way to prevent borrowing and the accumulation of interest payments is to prevent the deficit from occurring. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>For your information, the following states have passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional convention ostensibly to balance the federal budget: </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> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>