COUNCIL on DOMESTIC RELATIONS
PO Box 190
Millerton, Penn  16936

The following is transcript of Utah Governor Mike Leavitt's
position paper on the Conference of States. All sentences in
parantheses are our comments. The states' Resolution for
Participation in the Conference of States has passed in Utah and
Virginia. According to the Council of State Governments it has
also passed one chamber (House or Senate) in 7 states and has been
introduced in 18 others. We just received the information Friday
evening (1-27) so could not get names of states. Anyone who wishes
hardcopy of the MEMORANDUM included with a full info packet
(Virginia Gov. George Allen's Ex. Order #37, the Williamsburg
resolve with attachs. A & B; Counsel of State Govt's Resolution;
6-pg nsltr article; assorted news clippings) send $10 donation for
copy & mailing cost to: M.K. Fields, 14 Pochanhantus Path, Front
Royal, Virginia, 22630. Each individual receiving this information
is urged to contact your state legislature. Find out if a
Resolution for Participation in the Conference of States has been
or is being introduced in your state. Get the information to your
legislators to alert them of the dangers of this Conference of
States and alert all groups and organizations in your state.
Whether they are planning it or not, all condititons exist to
declare a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN PHILADELPHIA THIS YEAR. 


STATE OF UTAH OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
            SALT LAKE CITY    84114-0601

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT - GOVERNOR OLENE S. WALKER - LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR


MEMORANDUM May 17, 1994

To: Parties interested in the Conference of the States proposal

From: Gov. Mike Leavitt/LaVarr Webb, deputy for policy, (801)
538-1506

Subject: Conference of the States

For many years, thoughtful citizens and government leaders have
expressed concern about the growth of the federal government and
the centralization of power at the federal level. The states,
while intended to be equal partners in our nation's governmental
system, have over a period of many years been relegated to
subordinate status. (No-the states were never intended to be equal
partners. The government was created as "agent" to the states.
There is no such thing as "dual-sovereignty".)
    
Today, the depth and breadth of concern over this issue has
reached the point that hundreds of governors, legislators, county
leaders, city leaders and others are ready to stop talking and
start taking action. (Lesislators already have taken action - via
the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty Resolution)

One reason that states have not been able to successfully compete
for power in the federal system is that state power is dispersed.
As governing bodies, states are very successful. They are solving
problems related to health care, crime, human services and the
environment with progressive, innovative approaches. But as
competitors in the federal system, their power is spread over 50
states with their only collective action being conducted through
various associations whose main activity has been petitioning the
Congress. (The "various associations" which have been petitioning
the Congress are the National Governors' Association, ALEC, the
National Conference of State Legislators, etc. All ACIR
sub-associations. The legislators sponsoring, supporting and
passing the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty Resolution (47 states
so far) are NOT petitioning the feds. They're putting the feds on
notice to "cease and desist immediately all mandates beyond the
scope of its Constitutionally delegated authority". Leavitt has it
upside down and backwards.)

By contrast, the U.S. Congress meets at the same place for 200 or
so days each year and takes collective action daily. It is hard
for the states, with their dispersed power, to compete with the
consolidated power of the Congress.

Thus, the states must find a means to consolidate their power
through an event or series of events that bring the states
together to take action, not just plead with Congress for relief.
(The state legislators - true representatives of the people - are
invited to the Principal Assembly in Colorado which will be hosted
by Colorado Senator Charles Duke. Plans are already in progress
for a Spring meeting - NOT A CONFERENCE OF STATES WITH SANCTIONED
DELEGATES WHICH COULD CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.) 

What is needed is a rational, realistic, careful and sensible
approach to this problem. The attached paper proposes a process by
which states can take collective action and bring a better balance
in the federal system.



CONFERENCE OF THE STATES

An Action Plan to restore Balance in the Federal System 

Whenever state and local officials get together, a great sport is
made of bashing the federal government.

In the last several months, the rhetoric has become especially
heated over unfunded mandates forced upon state/local leaders by
paternalistic federal officials. Outrage and anger are displayed
at meetings of the National Governors' Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities
and Towns. State and local leaders are close to open rebellion.

But the reality is that despite all the talk. ..there's very
little real action or real improvement. (Right! What rock has
Leavitt been hiding under? Has he not heard of the 10th
Amendment-State Sovereignty movement?)

Other than the psychological value of blowing off some steam and
commiserating with ones' peers, very little progress has emerged
from such meetings. Speeches are made, resolutions are passed,
lists of grievances are aired. But the federal bureaucracy, the
Congress, and the president go right on consolidating power,
usurping local authority; and viewing states as mere
administrative units of the federal government.

State and local leaders have plenty of desire to do something
about this matter. They have lots of energy, significant
intellectual capacity. Hundreds of articles and many books have
been written about federalism and states' rights, decrying
centralization of power and the loss of flexibility at state and
local levels. But like the weather, everyone talks about the
erosion of states' rights . ..no one really does anything about
it. (Where has Leavitt been these past 10 months?)  

What has been lacking in all the talk is a real PLAN, a real
PROCESS, to really do something . ..to actually engage in an
effort that will restore balance in the federal system. States
must take the initiative. Relying on the goodwill of the president
- of whatever party - the Congress, the bureaucracy, or the courts
to restore proper balance is so naive as to be laughable. (And
this entire diatribe would be laughable if it weren't so
dangerous. Leavitt is certainly not an alert and aware State
Governor if he doesn't know about the 10th Amendment-State
Sovereignty movement. He has never spoken to Senator Duke, nor
invited him to their conclaves. How pathetic and dangerous is a
powerful elected official who speaks empty words as though they
mean something. More frightening are other elected officials who
take it seriously)

The purpose of this paper is to offer ideas for a PLAN. The
message here is that the time of hoping, begging and waiting has
ended. The time for action has come. It is time to re-establish
states as major constitutional players. (States have always been
the major Constitutional players according to the Constitution for
the United States of America. To whom or to what did Leavitt take
an oath if he isn't already aware of that fact?)  

This paper outlines a simple, but powerful, process for states to
retake the initiative, to take control of their own destinies, to
assume their rightful roles, to return proper authority,
flexibility and stature to the states. It is powerful because it
relies upon precedents established by the Founding Fathers at the
time of our nation's birth. It is also powerful because it
provides a "big gear" to address this problem, focusing on
fundamental, structural change, rather than fussing around with a
lot of smaller gears...the day to day issues that frustrate state
and local governments. Turning the "big gear" will get the smaller
gears spinning, resolving many of the federal-state conflicts on
specific issues. (He mentions the "big gear" several times
throughout this paper. Is he alluding to a Constitutional
Convention but won't say it?)

This plan has nothing to do with political partisanship. It s not
a Republican or a Democratic plan. And it is motivated by much
more than political ideology. While restoring proper balance in
the federal system is important for maximum personal liberty, it
is also important for reasons of efficiency, cost-effectiveness
and global competitiveness. (Of the 250million Americans in this
country, how many care about GLOBAL COMPETIVENESS? Only
International bankers and multi-national companies who fund
campaigns to elect state leaders who will talk about the "global
marketplace", "global competiveness", "global this and global
that")  The present arrangement of centralized control at the
federal level, with programs administered by huge, inefficient,
out-of-touch bureaucracies, is not positioning our country for
growth and prosperity in the next century. Unfunded federal
mandates rob states of innovation capital. (Wrong...
un-Constitutional mandates and un-Constitutional spending by the
federal government robs the states... which are comprised of
working, living, breathing human beings.)  Successful
organizations are decentralizing and downsizing. bureaucracies are
being dismantled across the world. Futurist John Naisbitt said,
"In one of the major turnarounds in my lifetime, we have moved
from 'economies of scale' to 'diseconomies of scale'; from bigger
is better to bigger is inefficient, costly, wastefully
bureaucratic, inflexible and now, disastrous."  He added that the
almost perfect metaphor for the movement from bureaucracies of
every kind to small, autonomous units, is the shift from mainframe
computers to PCs, networked together. "Whether president or CEO,
if you are an old mainframe thinker, you are no longer relevant."
(Newt Gingrich also espouses Naisbitt's futuristic philosophy.)

The idea that a central government...one huge mainframe -- is the
most important part of governance is obsolete. The deployment of
power must shift from the central government to states and
individuals. From vertical to horizontal; from hierarchy to
networking. As Naisbitt says, politics must begin to re-emerge as
the engine of individualism.

But even as the world's successful business leaders decentralize
and move power to the lowest possible point in the organization,
OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT grows ever bigger and more bureaucratic.
It IS OUTDATED AND OLD FASHIONED. IT IS NOT SUITED FOR THE
FAST-PACED, HIGH-TECH, GLOBAL MARKETPLACE WE ARE ENTERING. THERE
IS A MUCH BETTER WAY. (Now we know what Leavitt thinks about our
Constitution and probably what he will do as soon as he gets the
chance in Philadelphia at the Conference of States... that is IF
the Conference of States makes it to Philadelphia. And God save us
all if it does. The Colorado Resolution for Participation in the
Conference of States alludes to the intention of making long-term
structural changes - it's our Constitution they intend to change.)

It should also be said from the outset that the supporters of this
plan believe in a strong central government, as outlined in the
Constitution. This is not an attempt to destroy the federal
government, or to make states the dominant players in our system.
The intent is simply to restore a proper balance.

HISTORY HOW WE GOT WHERE WE ARE

It is fascinating to note that the problem we confront today
regarding balance in the federal system is similar to what the
Founding Fathers of this country faced more than 200 years ago
with regard to the Articles of Confederation -- only just the
reverse. Then, the national government was too weak and the states
too strong. Today, the national government is too powerful and the
states too weak.

It is vitally important to see how the Founding Fathers solved the
problems of the weak Confederation. Some of what occurred then can
help guide us today in restoring balance in the federal system.
(Yes, our Founding Fathers went to Philadelphia as a Conference of
States with instructions from the states and the Congress to
revise the Articles of  Confederation. Instead.... they dissolved
the government and started over simply by passing a resolution
saying so.)

The 13 states were, in effect, nearly autonomous countries under
the Articles of Confederation. They had all the power. The
Confederation Congress had little power. The congress could not
require the states to carry out any of its decisions. Every bill
that Congress passed had to be approved by nine of the 13 states.
There was no national military; no ability to regulate foreign
trade or commerce among the states; no ability to resolve
arguments over state boundaries; no power of taxation unless all
13 states agreed; and no common currency. Attendance at the
Confederation Congress was poor.

George Washington sadly described the national government as a
"rope of sand" and observed that "the Confederation appears to me
to be a shadow without substance."

Something had to be done, but where would the political will come
from to strengthen the national government? Who would initiate
such a bold move? Each state legislature clung tenaciously to its
power. Members of the Confederation Congress had no mandate or
desire to begin such a movement. They might lose their jobs. It
would take courageous people of good will to instigate changes.
(And today, are those courageous people Governors Leavitt, Nelson
and Allen? And state Legislative Leaders who are pushing this?
Will they go down in history as the men who destroyed freedom in
the world? Will they glory in their infamy? Maybe they expect to
have a place in the New World Order. And what/who will protect
them when there is no longer a Constitution for the United States
of America which secures the inalienable rights of all men? U.N.
Peacekeepers?)

The first break came at the instigation of James Madison and the
Virginia Legislature. They called for a conference of states --
remember that term -- to consider common interests in commercial
regulations. Only five states responded, and the major result of
the conference was a report asking that all states send delegates
to another meeting in Philadelphia on the second Monday of the
following May. Little did anyone know that the invitation would be
the thunderbolt that would lead to the birth of our present
federal government.

One by one, the states accepted the invitation. Once seven states
had agreed, the Confederation Congress acknowledged what was
happening and tried to minimize the impact by officially
recognizing it. However, the Congress tried to limit the
convention's authority by stating that it would meet "for the sole
and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."

As we all know, the delegates to the great Constitutional
Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia did much more than that. THEY
THREW OUT THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND DRAFTED A NEW
CONSTITUTION. Among others, two issues were important in that
debate: 1) large states versus small states; and 2) national
government versus states' rights.

To balance the interests of large and small states, the delegates
produced a brilliant solution, today referred to as the Great
Compromise. It gave each state equal representation in the Senate,
with representation in the House determined by population. To
balance power between the states and the national government, and
to prevent domination by any branch of government, the
Constitution created what Madison called a "compound republic,"
with power split between two levels -- national and state -- and
then split again among three branches of government at both
levels. "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the
people," said Madison. The new Constitution, along with the Bill
of Rights, gave superior power in limited areas to the national
government, but reserved all other authority to the states. It
intended to keep most everyday governmental functions at the level
closest to the people.

The Constitution established a balanced competition among levels
and branches of government. The people are protected, and the best
public policy emerges, only when those levels and branches are
willing and able to compete for power. If any one level or branch
of government unable to compete, power will be concentrated
improperly and the rights of the people will be endangered. The
Articles of Confederation failed because power was concentrated in
states and the national government was unable to compete.

The 10th Amendment reserved all non-delegated and non-prohibited
power to the states or to the people, clearly reserving a major
role for state and local officials. One of Madison's arguments
demonstrating that states had clear authority in the federal
system, and that the proposed Constitution truly divided power,
was that the states were the political units by which the people
would approve it.

As we know so well, over many years the original intent of the
founders has been eroded and the national government has
consolidated power and authority, while states have lost power and
ability to compete. Some of the erosion has been the states' own
fault. Citizens during the Progressive Era sought major social and
economic reforms. States were slow to respond, so reforms occurred
at the national level, led by the presidencies of Republican
Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. (Wilson, who U.S.
Senator Joe Biden reveres, gave us the Federal Reserve Act in 1913
and is quoted as later saying, "I have unwittingly destroyed my
country".)  State primacy was eroded. Misconduct by industry
prompted unprecedented national intervention in economic affairs
and a new willingness by the American people to look to
Washington, rather than to state capitols, for protection against
domestic threats to health and safety.

Any last resistance to an expanding national role was overwhelmed
by President Roosevelt's vast responses to the Great Depression
and World War 11. National dollars pumped life into the economy
and states surrendered autonomy in exchange for assistance. (Dare
we ask who created the great depression and from whom those
"federal dollars" came?) The states' reluctance to act on
environmental regulation and civil rights matters further allowed
the national government to usurp state prerogatives. Lyndon
Johnson's Great Society constituted another giant leap in the
growth of the federal government. The states did not resist, and
the age of fiscal federalism began. Richard Nixon's revenue
sharing program is an example. Governors and mayors were happy to
receive a flood of federal dollars, even if accompanied by
burdensome paperwork and regulation. (Perhaps the states, by
asserting the 10th Amendment, could regain control of the dollars
and then they would no longer be "federal dollars".)

All of this happened in relatively small increments and for
seemingly good purposes. In many cases, it was the fault of state
and local governments, which did not respond promptly to serious
problems or were willing to give up autonomy for federal dollars. 

Whatever the reasons the pendulum has swung too far. The federal
government now has too much power, is too unresponsive and
bureaucratic, and too expensive. The system is simply not working.
States are no longer competitive forces able to act as a balance
to the federal government. Instead of being a full-fledged
counterbalance to federal dominance, states are being treated and
viewed like administrative units of the federal government. (This
is exactly the issue which motivated the 10th Amendment-State
Sovereignty movement.)  The protections offered by the Miracle of
Philadelphia, are significantly eroded. Thus, the federal
government is running huge deficits, is over-regulating states and
citizens, is imposing one-size-fits-all requirements that make no
sense, is out-of-touch with local concerns, and is engaging in the
new dishonesty in government -- unfunded mandates. (What's new
about that?)

The solution is to restore competition in the system by returning
to the kind of balance intended by the founders. States must
obtain more leverage so they can compete for power. But how?

THE PLAN HOW TO RESTORE BALANCE IN THE SYSTEM

First, a dose of reality. Congress will not fix this. Congress has
every incentive to continue the trend toward centralization. (What
is Congress' incentive? Congress is not a thing....it is made up
of the people who fill the positions...supposed representatives of
the people and the states.)

The federal bureaucracy has even less incentive than Congress to
return authority to the states. Even if a president is so inclined
to try to reverse the trend, he is limited by the Congress and the
bureaucracy. (Doesn't the president appoint the bureaucrats?)  And
we cannot depend on the courts. The federal courts have generally
not been friendly to the role of states over the past 60 years.
The nationalist philosophy has prevailed. We simply cannot expect
the federal government to voluntarily give up power. (Once again,
what... or more specifically, who is "the federal government"?
They have nothing to give up because it isn't theirs to give. The
states must simply reassert the Constitutionally delegated power.)

Just as in the days of James Madison, if proper balance and
competition are to be restored, the states will have to do it.
States are the only players left that constitutionally have a
place at the table. It is the proper role of states to bring
balance by competing for power. (Exactly - and it will be done by
implementing the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement)

States have three tools to restore balance: public support, legal
tools, and constitutional tools. (The 10th Amendment - State
Sovereignty movement has public support and the Constitution to
enforce it. What more do we need? State legislators who will
listen to and stand up with/for the American people... NOT a
Conference of the States = Constitutional Convention.)

PUBLIC SUPPORT Citizens generally support the states on this
issue. They distrust Washington and the federal government. Voters
have been prone to elect outsiders as president, like Jimmy
Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton -- all former state
governors. (Who does he think buys this one? Voters vote for the
candidates chosen by the CFR and presented on a plate. We haven't
had a real candidate, chosen by the people since before F.D.R.
Maybe Leavitt has designs on the presidency?)  More candidates for
offices at all levels of government should be recruited who want
to bring balance back to the system. An army of governors, states
legislators, mayors, county officials, members of Congress and
even presidential candidates could have an impact. But the process
will, again, be slow. More is required.

LEGAL TOOLS States have not been aggressive enough in asserting
claims under the Constitution protecting their role. Many of the
most important cases have been left to individual states who were
inadequately prepared and poorly financed. While legal redress
should be pursued, it is not likely that a major shift in the
balance of power will occur any time soon as a result of court
action. The process will be long and difficult and the result is
uncertain. (The states do not have to enter into legal action
against their agent, the federal government. In those cases where
they have, if the federal courts find against states in matters of
sovereignty, then the states must ignore the courts. Federal
courts have a clear conflict of interest.)

CONSTITUTIONAL TOOLS -- or the threat of constitutional action.
The drafters of the Constitution sensed that times would change.
They knew adjustments would be necessary. They provided a process
for change and gave tools to the states to restore balance in the
system. While state have never used this particular tool, it is
important to recognize that it exists and is available if balance
can be restored in no other way. This tool is precious for states.
It gives them high status in the federal system and provides a
check on the federal government. It provides important leverage
and makes states more competitive in the system. (His paragraph
ends here. To what tool could we presume he is referring? He won't
say it, so we will.... a Constitutional Convention. What else? His
next paragraph heading....)

A CONFERENCE OF THE STATES Public support, legal standing, and
constitutional options are potentially powerful tools, but to date
have been little used. Individual states constitute good
government because they represent power dispersed through 50
separate entities. While that quality has virtue as a principle of
governance, it makes competing with a monolithic force like the
federal government difficult. (The federal government is no more
"monolithic" than we give it credence to be. Here's a real dose of
reality -- state legislators who have not sold out, been
black-mailed or are not brain dead can "just say 'NO' to the
federal government. Sovereignty, according to Baron's Law
Dictionary - Third Edition - means "preeminent among all others".
And 'preeminent' means -- "authority" "prominent" "elevated"
"chief" "principal"... etc.)

In order to challenge and compete for their rightful role, states
require a rallying event, a means of consolidating their power. It
should be a process less disruptive than calling a constitutional
convention, but one that demands results and responses... a call
to action. (Governor Leavitt is like the Emperor Who Had No
Clothes. He rants on and on as though a strong and powerful
movement has not been taken up already in all 50 states. If he
really means what he is saying, why don't the Governors of all 50
states just simply support their state legislators in asserting
the autonomy of the states in invoking the Constitution under the
10th - and 9th - Amendments? ...namely the 10th Amendment State
Sovereignty movement. It has already passed in 10 state
legislatures, is introduced in 20....not to mention the remaining
20 state which have sponsors for the Resolution.)

History maps the way. (Read the following carefully and you will
understand what Leavitt has in store for us. They are
reconstructing history to replay it in Philadelphia in 1995.)
When James Madison and others could see that the national/state
relationship was out of balance in 1786, they called for an
informal, grassroots conference of leaders from each state. The
result of that meeting was a call for a formal convention which
resulted in the drafting of the Constitution and our present form
of government.

Today, we suggest a five-part plan:

1. Each state will send a delegation, presumably legislators and
governors, to a "Conference of the States."  to validate its
participation, each state should pass a resolution in its
legislature authorizing an official delegation. States unable to
pass resolutions could be represented by members of the
Legislature willing to come on their own as a delegation. The
conference would have rules defining how it operates.

2. At the informal "Conference of the States," one narrow purpose
would be undertaken -- to develop an agenda or action plan that
would give states leverage to compete in the federal system,
ultimately restoring balance between the states and the national
government. The action plan could consist of legal strategies,
carefully crafted amendments to the U.S. Constitution, OR OTHER
COMPONENTS.

3. If a high percentage of the state delegations to the
"Conference of States" supported the Action Plan, the delegations
would take the plan, in the form of resolutions, back to their
states for presentation to their Legislatures. (In the
Constitutional Convention of 1787 the Conference met as a
Committee of the Whole; adopted a Resolution to Dissolve the
Articles of Confederation and that was the end of that. Then they
re-convened as a Constitutional Convention and made "long-term
structural changes". In other words, they reconstructed our form
of government. The Colorado resolution for Participation in the
Conference of States says they intend to make "long term
structural changes". Dare we risk the possible/probable
consequences of another Constitutional Convention?)

4. The Legislatures would then act. If, say, 75% of the
Legislatures of this country formally endorsed the Action Plan,
the "Conference of States" would then ask Congress to act. With so
many states providing support, it is likely that Congress would
give heed. One must suppose that any proposal that survived the
careful consideration and scrutiny by that many legislatures must
be good and badly needed public policy. (Another dose of reality
-- if our state legislators approve the resolution for this
Conference of States we cannot suppose any good could come of any
resolutions approved by them.)  If approved by Congress, any
constitutional amendment would still have to be ratified by
three-fourths of the states. (Here is the big lie -- by omission.
According to Article V of our present Constitution amendments
would be ratified by 3/4ths of the state LEGISLATURES or by 3/4ths
of RATIFYING CONVENTIONS IN THE STATES. Our Legislatures can be
bypassed in favor of the ratifying conventions. The U.S. Congress
decides the mode of ratification. If that makes you feel a 'bit
uneasy', consider this -- the Convention can change the ratifying
process....or worse yet, rewrite our Constitution. So, God only
knows what would come of a Convention.)

5. If Congress refused to consider or pass the amendments, the
states would have the option themselves of calling a
constitutional convention to consider the amendments. (Here's what
James Madison had to say about the talk of a Constitutional
Convention as a means to make some changes in our Constitution
before it was ratified..."... 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".)  This threat would provide the leverage that
has been missing in state dealing with the federal government. It
would make states a competitive force to be reckoned with. It
would act as a counterbalance to the arrogance of the Congress.
(It's interesting the way Leavitt speaks of "the Congress" as
though Congress is an "it". His picture was taken with Newt
Gingrich  and Bob Dole - all snuggled together. Is it possible
this Conference of States has been contrived by the planners of a
global government to once and for all dismantle the Constitution
so as to pave the way to their New World Order? And could Leavitt
believe he will have a place in the new World Government?)  

Supporters of this proposal hope and believe that such dire action
as calling a constitutional convention would not be necessary. But
the threat must exist to motivate Congress to act. The
Constitution provides for this action by states as a check on the
federal government, to force progress when Congress refuses to
act. It must be assumed that a gathering of delegates appointed by
at least two-thirds of the states would be just as responsible and
careful as is the Congress, which has the authority at any time to
propose constitutional amendments. 

(This is a whole new debate. Who ever said the Congress is
responsible and careful? Leavitt just referred to them as
arrogant. Additionally, the "gathering of delegates" would not be
appointed by two-thirds of the "states". According to the
Resolution for Participation in the Conference of States the
delegates will be selected by "legislative leaders" who are
promoting this Conference, along with the states' Governors. This
means... listen carefully now.... the delegates {5-7 from each
state} who attend the Conference of States will be the governors
and legislators selected by the legislative leaders. We can expect
all or most of the 50 Governors to be in attendance and since the
resolution doesn't prohibit the legislative leaders from selecting
themselves, probably four legislative "leaders" from each state
will become delegates. Since the legislative leaders and Governors
are the driving force for the Conference of States and since we've
been told the other legislators (peons?) won't "buck the
leadership", the chances of a majority of states passing it is a
strong probability. We're looking, then, at a Conference of States
attended by 250-350 officially sanctioned state delegates who may
and probably will declare a Constitutional Convention in
Philadelphia this year. These few-hundred self-selected people
will then have full and supreme authority as law makers for the
250 million people in America who are presently protected from
tyranny by the Constitution for the United States of America. God
save us from this insanity.)

(If you question the authority and power these delegates
have...consider this -- from Corpus (body)  Jurus (law) Secundum
(according to) 16 C.J.S. 9 - Standard Reference Text for American
Constitutional Law -  "(1) members (officially sanctioned
delegates) of a Constitutional Convention are the direct
representatives of the people  (2) and, as such, they may exercise
all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state.
(3) they derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from
the people: (4) and hence, their power may not in any respect be
limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a
Legislative Body of the Highest Order  (5) and may not only frame,
but may also enact and promulgate, a Constitution."  Citations:
Miss., Sproul v. Fredericks; Iowa, Koehler v. Hill; W.V., Loomis
v. Jackson; Oklahoma, Frantz v. Autry; Texas, Cox v. Robison)

Besides potential constitutional action, the agenda established by
the Conference of States would also ignite a national political
debate that no candidate for Congress, for president, for
governor, or for any state legislative race could avoid. (We
already know what you're talking about, Governor Leavitt. AND WE
KNOW WHY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. The 10th Amendment-State
Sovereignty movement is already upon you.)  All would be forced to
take positions on federalism issues, and this matter of
federal/state balance could become the pre-eminent political issue
of the day, again providing leverage and making states more
competitive. The agenda would also provide a rallying point for
citizens who are frustrated and who want responsible change.
("Look! The Emperor has no clothes!") 

The informal "Conference of the States" is a key and important
element of this plan. Its purpose must be clearly defined (to
neutralize the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement?) and
focused on broad, fundamental actions that would restore careful
balance to the federal/state relationship. The Conference must not
be allowed to become sidetracked on specific issues supported or
opposed by any number of special interest groups. It must not be
captured by the left or the right (just stick to the globalists'
agenda) or any single group. It must not become a forum for
pro-abortion or anti-abortion, or pro-gun control or anti-gun
control groups who might want amendments of their own. There are
hundreds of causes that people would like to address with
constitutional amendments. The Conference is not a forum for such
discussions. (It is a Constitutional Convention to implement the
Global Government under the New World Order)  It must remain
focused on the fundamental issue of providing leverage and
bringing balance to federal/state relationships. (Is anybody very,
very tired with this Orwellian double-speak? We are not "partners"
with the federal government. We are its creators. It is our agent.
We, the people are sovereign over all government, including the
state government when it is not in keeping with the Constitution)


The Conference must not attempt to swing the pendulum too far in
the other direction by proposing too much authority for the
states. A strong national government is still needed. It would
make sense to focus on amendments that are already broadly
supported and are not partisan in nature. (Oh.... and what might
those "amendments" be, Governor Leavitt? Has it not yet dawned on
you to merely support the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty
movement which the legislators in 47 states have already pledged
to support... and implement? Have you governors and state
legislative leaders ever considered just invoking the Constitution
as it now exists? Just put the federal government back in the cage
our founders built for it.)

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS A number of amendments might be considered by
the Conference of States. Some of those suggested would prohibit
unfunded mandates (or could we consider... maybe.... perhaps....
un-Constitutional mandates?... or had you not thought of that?)
and strengthen the language in the 10th Amendment. (How could it
be stronger or more clear? Maybe you like Virginia Governor,
George Allen's proposed amendment that would allow 2/3rds of the
vote of Congress to over-ride resolutions from the states to
repeal "objectionable" federal mandates which, under the 10th
Amendment, we now have the power to just reject.)  A substantial
amount of research and effort would be required to determine the
proper direction and specific amendments. A great deal of
scholarly research has already been done in this area, some of it
by governors' organizations and legislators' organizations. (Could
he be talking about the ACIR's -- National Governors' Association
and National Conference of State Legislators? Those associations
which have been created by the Internationalists who are using
their stooges to pull America into the New World Order?)

CONCLUSION This process is reasoned; it is careful. It relies on
the good sense and patriotism of governors, state legislators and
local government officials from across this country. This effort
is non-partisan and free from special interest group influence. 

The process outlined in this paper gives state and local leaders a
plan. It gives them a "big gear" to ultimately solve many of the
lesser problems they encounter with the federal government. They
can do more than just complain and talk. They can act. they are
the only ones who will work to restore balance in our federal
system. Congress never will. (Even Leavitt's friends, Newt and
Bob?)  The courts never will. The president never will. But state
leaders will. (Notice how he consistently refers to "state
leaders"? He pretends the legislators, elected in small districts
within the states by the people, are non-existent. Only the "state
leaders" will do something. There are 7,500 state legislators in
the states, and only 250 state leaders. Lots more Indians than
chiefs. Let's see if.... and hope... and pray that the Indians
will stand against the chiefs who are leading them and America to
self-destruction. This Conference of States must not come to
pass.)