Utah Governor Mike Leavitt's
Position on the Conference of States
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, LIEUTENANTGOVERNOR
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 resolutionsaying
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 presentfederal 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 newabout 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 formof 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 OTHERCOMPONENTS.
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 topass.) |