You are on page 1of 156

A Collection of Issue Briefs Prepared in the Public Interest By Sherman Institute

On The Cover: A standard sentence diagram of Article V of the United States Constitution, as prepared by Dr. Karen Ruff, Dean of English for Sherman Institute. Poster sized, glossy, suitable-for-framing copies of this diagram are available. E-mail ( for details. Becoming a lost art, sentence analytics is essential to understanding the meaning of many of the more complex (or compound, or both) sentences as contained in this Constitution. Dr. Ruff teaches these skills at Sherman Institute, and her efforts at parsing the English on Article V is also included in this document.

2014 marks the 225th Anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution. Ironic just as so many people are rediscovering the wisdom and content of this document, which has preserved liberty for six generations, there is an opposite movement afoot to destroy it. This book collects and presents information to our generation about that movement toward destruction, and what we can (and must) do to preserve, protect, and defend this Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Table of Contents Introduction (Aaron Bolinger). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) A Brief Synopsis (Aaron Bolinger). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) Model "COS" Resolution (Citizens for Self-Governance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) The Question of An Article V Constitutional Convention (David Whitney, D.D.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11) The Constitution (Article V) According to English (Karen Ruff, D.A.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13) Rebuttal to Goldwater Institute "Fact Sheet" (Aaron Bolinger).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20) Enforcement, Not Amendment, Is The Answer (Edwin Vieira, Jr., J.D., L.L.D). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (40) Prudent Fear of the Unknown is No "Fallacy" (Dr. Edwin Vieira). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (45) The Effort to Dismantle our Constitution (Jackie Patru) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (48) On the Need to Pass State Resolutions to Rescind Previous Applications to Congress for a Constitutional Convention (National Veterans Committee for Constitutional Affairs [NVCCA] Issue Brief). . . . . . (53) Model State Resolution .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (54) Legacy Document Collection Con Con Q & A (Liberty Lobby, 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (63) American Legion Resolution (1987) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (75) Testimony of Walter Dellinger Prof. of Law, Duke University (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (78) Statement of Warren Burger, Former Chief Justice (1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (95) Quotes from "A New Constitution Now". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (96) Letter to State Representatives (Marshall Peters)(1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (101) New States Constitution (Model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (103) Eagle Forum Articles Good Advice About a Con Con (Phyllis Schlafly) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (121) A warning about things to come (Phyllis Schlafly) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (122) New American Magazine Articles Article V: Con-Con or Nothing is the Cry of This Cause Clbre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (123) In Defense of Con-Con, Meckler Chooses Ridicule Over Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (125) Socialists & Soros Fight for Article V Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (128) Appendices Historical Evidence of Budget Balancing Provisions (NVCCA Issue Brief). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (131) US Senate Accountability Issue Brief (NVCCA Issue Brief). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (140)

or: By: Aaron Bolinger, Co-Founder, Sherman Institute

Introduction If I Could Change the Constitution

This brief was prepared to answer basic questions about the wisdom of opening a Conference of States or Convention of States or any such otherwise titled meeting or assembly of delegates OFFICIALLY1 called for the purpose of amending or otherwise tampering with the Constitution of the United States under any pretext whatsoever. This document was prepared primarily for the use of citizen-action groups, and duly elected members of state legislative assemblies, so that they better understand the full scope of the ramifications of an Article V event; and to bring to light the hidden agendas of many of the groups that are, in the 21st Century and within recent memory, promoting the notion of opening the first such convention since 1787. Many people, across the full spectrum of political ideologue, have said to themselves, if I could change the Constitution, I would (insert notion here). Personally, I have my own shopping list of ideas on ways to improve on the Founding Fathers design. In general, they did a remarkable job. If they missed anything, it was truly a case of nailing shut any room for a few of the nutty notions that have came about since the great war (Civil), and during that time when there was arguably no legitimate Congress even functioning, due to the absence of a quorum (many states were missing). But aside from my own shopping list, which in this dialog, over time, I shall contribute, there is a big-ole brew-ha-ha coming down the pike. Since I started paying attention, about 1981, we have seen this same story about one good shot per decade. The big notion does not concern how we might draft a single (or several) constitutional amendment(s) under the Article V process that has occurred for each change we now see in that group of existing amendments. Nope, this idea is for a full blown, hold your breath, Constitutional Convention the other mechanism for change provided for in Article V. The federal Constitution was drafted in 1787 when 55 men assembled and worked from May 14 until September 17 (four solid months +three days) doing what they were absolutely told NOT to do. Their mission statement, coming on direct orders of the states that sent them as delegates, was to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they set about to completely rewrite the framework of government into something much more national than had ever been contemplated. That is why I used the phrase hold your breath because once again the calls for an Article V convention are upon us, and one particular legislator, the President of the Indiana state senate, has called a meeting for December 7, 2013, in Mount Vernon, Virginia, with other state legislators, to set up the rules to be followed if and when a constitutional convention is called. Check, one-two. Is this microphone working? Weve tried that before, Senator (David) Long. It didnt work. In a nation where about 90% of everything that transpires either politically or in our legal system occurs based on the previous precedents established, by what stroke of genius do you believe that any convention, called for any reason, is going to constrain itself to any rules you or even (heaven forbid) the Pope decreed? A convention is, was the last time, and ever will be, a political nightmare. It is a SOVEREIGN assembly. Look that word up, if you dont get it. The sovereign is bound by no underlings beneath it. And a convention, comprised of our 50 states (or any collection thereof that decide to attend the party), can, and will, do what it bloody-well pleases.

Officially is defined as an event called under the guidelines of Article V of the Constitution for the united States of America. Such event can only happen by a petition to Congress from the requisite number of state legislatures under the terms of Article V, which is explained succinctly herein. Page 3 of 155

I like the analogy given by an astute veteran, probably in 1985 if memory serves, where he spoke of going to the ballpark for the specific and exclusive purpose of buying a hot dog. If a game broke out while he was there, he promised the wife he would leave immediately. This analogy is perfect for the notion of a constitutional convention. If your wife (the state that sent you) sets limits on YOUR conduct, then you have two choices obey her and leave, or ignore her and stay put. If you obey, the game will still go on, with or with out you. By leaving, you only resign what input you may have contributed but the game still gets played. Unfortunately, when the stakes are the Constitution ALL OF IT those are some pretty high stakes to be playing with. You see, it really doesnt matter what the promoters of a convention CLAIM to be their reason for calling one. Some want a Balanced Budget Amendment or Term Limits or a Line Item Veto or another possible dozen mainstream ideas. Other prospects, from the full spectrum, are going to be much more radical than even those. The fact is, everyone present will come in with their own preconceived notions, their own pet projects, their own financial backers to look after, their own states interests to cater to, their own political ambitions, axes to grind, or whatever. But there is an even darker cloud on the horizon for liberty, should a convention happen in modern times. In fact, it amounts to more than a single cloud. The prospect of a convention in the current temper of both America and the world is to political science what a single cloud is to a hurricane. Or what a jackhammer is compared to a 9.0 earthquake; or what a normal wave in San Diego is compared to an Indian Ocean tsunami. Have you heard? There is an entirely NEW constitution that has been drafted by the global elite. It creates new branches of government at the national level, and reduces every single right to a merely revocable privilege. So much for freedom. And the only way this NEW constitution could possibly come to fruition is in an open, Article V convention. It would never make it through the traditional amendment process. With normal amendments, every notion every syllable of a change gets scrutinized closely, and has the opportunity to be debated in all states. It must first pass muster in Congress. Then it must be ratified by a super-majority of the states. There be no such formula for the product of a convention. The entire constitution is opened up for surgery, and the ratification process can become whatever its CREATORS deem salutary. Just like the original convention changed its own documents ratification process, so too would we expect the same in such an event today. The dangers of a convention have been well documented. Certainly this new push for such a once-or maybe-twice-in-world-history event need not lead me to rehash all these realities. [Note: this document contains many of those ancillary, and legacy reports.] I will agree with the notion of changing the Constitution (so long as they are valid, corrective models) but even then only to the extent that any and all proposed changes, one at a time, submit themselves to the tried-and-true Amendment process of Article V. In fact, if anyone cares to ask, I would gladly draft up a few proposals to fix Washington run amok. I will also review anything of interest, to see if it is more smoke and mirrors, or would actually do what proponents might assert. Heres the bigger problem, however. With a now 200 year history of IGNORING much of the existing Constitution, of what benefit will be EITHER a Convention, or one or more amendments? Until we put people into office that will honor their oath to it, no amendment, rule, or even tar/feather punishment clauses, will carry much weight. Note also that (unfortunately) seriously-concerned, well-intentioned people (principally Tea Party Patriot groups) are now being sucked in, used, and manipulated into the bait & switch. (The bait is a balanced budget or other beneficial outcome, but the switch is the convention itself, detrimental to everything we uphold.) One of the founders of the Tea Party Patriots (Mark Meckler) is now a Founder of the so-called Citizens for Self-Governance group promoting the Con con. As such, pro Con-Con materials are being piped out to local Tea Party groups, pushing for their convention of states. Dont be sucked into the wrong side of Page 4 of 155

the debate. Political Science practitioners look for the hidden links between things to underscore the warfare present. Heres the link:

A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF A PROPOSAL BY Citizens for Self Governance (and a Counter-Proposal)

By Aaron Bolinger There are two competing ideas concerning opening a modern-day constitutional convention: One says that it is necessary; the other says No. There are many ways to articulate both sentiments, with 1000 ideas going around in various activist groups about such an event. Arguments on both sides have their merits, with contributions to the dialog coming from the man on the street all the way to justices of the US Supreme Court. Political groups, veterans, tea party activists, fiscal conservatives (and liberals), college professors, lawyers and every other interested faction has their opinion on any of a dozen valid questions about a convention. Of all the questions, one stands out: can it be limited to a single issue? In this brief we will examine two documents: one proposed by a proponent of a convention will get the premium attention. The other alternative is also presented. These documents are parallel opposites. The first includes a model resolution put forward by a group calling themselves Citizens for Self Governance. It is targeted for state assemblies in 2014 and beyond, to accumulate identical language from 34 states (the constitutionally required number) that will result in the convention. In the handbook wherein this resolution is found* are numerous arguments, among them proposing that: 1. 2. A Constitutional Convention is necessary to fix the current evils in Washington; A Constitutional Convention can be limited to a particular agenda, wherein only those items sought by the resolution are open for debate; and There is no danger to any other aspects of national governance to be expected from this Convention.


Page 5 of 155

* See: Convention of States: A Handbook for Legislators and Citizens found on

deliberately so broad as to be, of themselves, completely wide open.

* See Section 1" of the Resolution.

So lets start with the resolution itself, and analyze its own words, to see if the arguments of the Citizens group (and other Con Con proponents) pass muster with their own rhetoric. The full text of that resolution is reprinted following this synopsis, so that it can be read for verification of content. Their primary argument, suggesting that a convention can be limited to only the defined parameters given by the resolutions calling for it, is most interesting. Suggesting such a limiting set of conditions on the convention is a novel idea. Isnt that what the Constitution itself was to do, set limits on Washington? I would ask, hows that working out? It seems that history is replete with good intentions going to a warm place, in a handbasket. Moreover, a Convention is a sovereign entity. Though the Congress itself may attempt to put conditions on the convention, the fact is that the convention is only bound by such rules to the extent that it so desires. Broadly speaking, the convention is an animal of its own, and will do as it sees fit. There is no body with oversight authority, legal standing to constrain or attempt to constrain it, nor the legal power requisite to enforce any rules on its deliberations. But beyond even that reality, the chosen three items this Citizens group seeks for the convention to address (* fiscal restraints, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and the imposition of term limits) are

Anyone versed in the Constitution merely reading it shows that document has, by these three items alone, been opened in its entirety for retrofitting. Lets start with the second item, to prove the point: Limiting the power of the Federal Government. To confine the convention to merely limiting the powers of Congress would still open up the entirety of Article 1, as the powers of the Congress are found there. Their language federal government does not even limit the convention to merely and arguably the worst abuser (or usurper) of powers the Executive Branch (found in Article II). Limiting the power of the Judicial branch also part of the federal government, no question about it opens all of Article III for consideration. So by using such a notion as limiting the power of the Federal Government you have already exposed three entire Articles of the Constitution to review. But it gets worse. Article IV contains the short list of thou shalt nots as pertaining to the states. Now, if we remove a federal power, guess what? Yep you will also and necessarily impact (and need to change) Article IV to transfer a power back to the states from whence it originated. Amazing how we now have four of the six articles already exposed, just in those two words federal government. This Citizens group has absolutely NOT chosen their words as carefully as did the authors of the Constitution itself, because we can drive a truck through the

Page 6 of 155

hole left by using the term federal government, instead of being more specific. And that is only one of their doors. Their first notion, fiscal restraints is equally large in scope. One look at the Constitution reveals many locations where money and taxation are subject of either a power, or an existing restriction. If only considering the taxation power, and if the language of their model resolution were to be so specific, there would still be numerous provisions of the Constitution open for debate. How so? With representation and direct taxation connected (Article 1, ,2 Cl. 3, and Art. 1 9, Cl. 4), any attempt to impose restraint would very likely call these provisions into question, and require tinkering to create a new formula. And that is just those types of taxes classified as direct. What about the indirect taxes duties, imposts and excise varieties? There would be a whole new subject, and many additional sections and clauses to tinker with. Then there is the 16th Amendment that purports to enable taxes on income (whatever that is) without apportionment. As you can see, not just the Constitution itself, but even certain existing amendments are involved in the notion of fiscal anything. When reviewed for what the Constitution already says, it would be ludicrous to imagine any finer language to restrain Washington. The problem is, none of the three branches of government give a whit about restraints. Their main interest, greed, carries the day. So how, pray tell, would disconnecting direct taxation from representation serve any purpose other than

to authorize Congress to tax even greater, if the goal is to be a balanced budget? Basic arithmetic says that when spending goes up, so must taxation, if the books are to be synchronized. Demanding a balanced budget, when spending remains unchecked, is merely asking for higher levels of, and perhaps new locations on which they would certainly impose, federal taxation of all four varieties. Next comes the spending component. What aspects of spending would be revised by this convention? The potential is certainly only limited by the innovative minds of conventioneers, and necessarily encompasses every aspect of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to appropriate for some cause. For example, the Constitution requires Congress to maintain a Navy. Should that power be removed, in the interest of budget balancing? What restriction could you possibly include in constitutional language that is not already conditioned by Art. 1, 8, Cl. 18, that requires all powers used by the Congress be both necessary and proper? (Contrary to popular misconception, there is nothing elastic in proper construction of the Queens English within that clause. These are conditions, not elasticity.) What about establishing and funding the court system? The Post Offices? Where such a deliberately broad term as fiscal restraints is involved, nothing is sacred. Their language is, in point of fact, overly broad to the ridiculous. Then there is another looming congressional power that of borrowing. None of the model Balanced Budget Amendments yet seen seek to cap the endless propensity for Washington to

Page 7 of 155

attempt the impossible borrowing us all into prosperity. Attempting any sort of fiscal restraint without addressing the congressional power to borrow would be idiotic. More tinkering with more clauses would be required to accomplish this fiscal restraint in any meaningful manner whatsoever. Further, the currently unconstitutional transference of the power to coin money to a private banking system (what Congress did in 1913 in the creation of the Federal Reserve) and ipso facto the inherent dilemma where every dollar in circulation is now borrowed onto the playing field requires another level of intelligence to understand the magnitude of the real problem. That is, the mathematical impossibility of ever balancing a federal budget where every dollar is borrowed into circulation, at interest. Hence, our national debt. Regardless of the stimulating effect of inflationary paper, the principal of the loan can never be reduced by any sinking fund, much less the interest, under extant circumstances. Does this proposed convention seek to collapse the entire economy by shutting down the Federal Reserve? I hardly think so yet such would need to happen if there is to be a restoration of interest-free, constitutionally-mandated silver and gold coinage, and an end to perpetual debt. Nothing seen yet attempts to address this specific problem. None of the model Balanced Budget Amendments even contemplate it. By what level of imagination are we to believe that a Convention would confront this problem head-on, and solve it? The model resolution does not touch it, except

with overly-broad fiscal restraint language. Only obedience to the clear, extant language of the Constitution can address this particular problem. (And so it is for most other issues facing us from Washington.) These two words that the Constitution uses respecting the federal power to coin money (Art. 1, 8, Cl. 5) make it clear the intent of the Constitutions framers. You cannot coin (used as a verb) paper. Stamping silver and gold into coinage was what made the dollar the world standard. Since the retirement of the last of these two metals, in 1964, nation after nation has had to be bombed to compel them to accept this paper as payment for commodities in the world marketplace oil, produce, etc. Not a word about this appears in the Citizens document. But of course not. Their intention is clearly neither to actually address the major problems of Washington, nor to limit a convention to any thing substantive in particular. CONCLUSION The wording of their resolution makes it plain that the entire Constitution will be debatable under such far-reaching amendments (plural used in the original), and on such overly-broad topics, as it suggests. By their own language, their model stands convicted of political double-speak: On one hand, it purports to be limited, or at least to establish limiting criteria. On the other, the subject matter is couched in language that is absurdly broad enough to make the entire Constitution susceptible to revision.

Page 8 of 155

Indeed, with a new Constitution already written*, and based on the whos who of this Citizens group, the words of Gore Vidal ring more clearly than ever. There is far more to this suggested convention than fiscal restraint or limiting the power of Washington. The entire Constitution goes on the chopping block if this particular resolution is the foundation of it.

By contrast, only the second model resolution contained herein makes any sense at all rescind any and all existing calls for a convention to protect the handiwork of the Founding Fathers. Their wisdom clearly supercedes anything the Citizens group hath put forth.
* See The Emerging Constitution, by Rexford G. Tugwell, pages 595-621

The publication of materials within this document by diverse authors are covered under Fair Use copyright terms. All works remain the property of their authors, and may not be used otherwise without the written permission of the author. This document is intended for educational purposes of individuals and state legislators considering calling an Article V Constitutional Convention, and not for profit.

Page 9 of 155

Page 10 of 155

The Question of An Article V Constitutional Convention

Pastor David Whitney Dean of Theology at Sherman Institute. There is a great deal of interest in an Article V Convention particularly in light of the publication of Mark Levins book Liberty Amendments. The frustration American patriots are expressing with the growing tyranny of Washington, D.C. is clearly warranted. The out of control actions of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches have reached a level unimagined even a year ago. How to curb that tyranny and return our civil government to the bounds of the Constitution is a vitally important question. Mark Levins proposal is attractive for many reasons, and the movement behind his idea is growing. The most important question is this, is the process he proposes Constitutional? And the second question is would it accomplish the purposes for which he sets the Liberty Amendments forward for consideration before the American Republic? First question, yes an Article V Amendment is constitutional. There are two ways of presenting amendments to the Constitution provided in that instrument. By the first, by Congress whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem such amendments necessary: or by the second, the same body, upon the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States, may call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. These two are the only modes in which, under that instrument, amendments can be proposed to the Constitution. Either of these is adequate, and it was the manifest intention of its framers to secure due consideration of any changes which might be proposed to the fundamental law of our Government. Mark Levins proposal claims to follow this second route but with a significant difference. Instead of applying to Congress as the text of Article V demands, his proposal would leave it in the hands of the States without application to Congress. He would claim that the justification for this, which I think is clearly an un-constitutional path, is the Convention of 1861 which met in Richmond, Virginia. That argument however does not hold water. Listen to what Delegate Baldwin to that convention states, it was the manifest intention of its framers to secure due consideration of any changes which might be proposed to the fundamental law of our Government. It is conceded on all hands that our action here will amount to nothing, unless it meets the approval of Congress, and such proposals of amendment as we shall agree upon are recommended by that body to the States for adoption. The session of the present Congress is drawing to a close. There remain only fifteen or sixteen days during which it can transact business. Can any one suppose that in the present state of the country, with the large number of important measures before Congress and awaiting its action, any proposition of real importance emanating from this Conference could be properly considered by either House in this short time? I am assuming just now that this is a Convention which has the right, under the Constitution or by precedent, to make such propositions. But if we do not remember, most certainly Congress will, that however respectable this body may be, however large may be the constituency which it represents, it is, after all, one which has no existence under, and is not recognized by the Constitution. In a recent speech in the Senate, Judge COLLAMER, of Vermont, one of the ablest lawyers in that body, has more than intimated a doubt whether Congress could, under the Constitution, entertain proposals of amendment presented to it by such a body as this. Note the telling language, this Convention is not recognized by the Constitution. In other words the 1861 Convention was not an Article V Convention at all. Levins history lesson doesnt teach what he claims it teaches at all, but exactly the opposite. In addition, there is another factor that must be considered which I believe answers the question of whether the Liberty Amendments would actually accomplish the purpose that is claimed for them. Page 11 of 155

A Convention is a higher law making body than a legislature. Therefore they can propose a whole new constitution. It is not possible, as claimed, to limit a Convention once it is called. The proof is the Convention which met in May 1787 in Philadelphia. That convention was given very specific and exacting instructions; quoting from the Massachusetts resolution commissioning their delegates to the 1787 Convention they wrote, for the sole & express purpose of revising the articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress & the several Legislatures, such alterations & provisions therein, as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States. There was no warrant given to the delegates from Massachusetts or from any of the other participating States to even consider a new Constitution nor to propose any new Constitution. Yet that is exactly what they did in 1787. Was what they did legal? Well, if what they did was not legal, then our 1787 Constitution would not be legal. It is legal, however, and it demonstrates that what takes place in such a Convention cannot be limited by anything written down by any State Legislature. An even larger problem for such a Convention is the practical matter we face every day. If those in Washington are not abiding by their oath of office to the current Constitution and its Amendments, why would we think that they would abide by any new Amendments added to the existing Constitution? The solution is not a Convention, but replacing unConstitutional office holders. But that means we must train up American voters who understand the standards by which to choose office holders. And thats what Sherman Institute offers, education in the Founders tradition that will equip citizens with a working standard by which to choose officials who know and will apply the ultimate standards for Law and Government.

Page 12 of 155

The Constitution According to English Article V

By Karen Ruff, D.A., Dean of English The Roger Sherman Institute

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Cover of this book, is a Reed-Kellogg diagram of Article V of the Constitution for the United States. The following key applies to the uses of colored lines in the diagram: Black: baselines, conjunction lines, and all text Red: one word modifiers, specifically adjectives and adverbs Green: Prepositional Phrases Blue: participial phrases and gerund phrases The following conventional abbreviations are used in the diagram: N: noun V: verb DO: direct object rel pro: relative pronoun LV: linking verb Pro: pronoun Pred. Adj: Predicate Adjective The use of parenthesis where applicable indicates material that is understood in an elliptical clause or phrase. For instruction / review of the parts of speech and word usage, contact The Roger Sherman Institute via http://shermaninstituteinfo

Page 13 of 155

The Constitution According to English: Article V (written by Karen Ruff, D.A.) Article V of the Constitution provides ways of making changes to the Constitution. The first is by adding amendments, a method that has been used successfully to the point that we now have twenty seven tacked on. (The wisdom of all of those amendments is another issue, but they were successfully created using the first option.) The second methodholding a Constitutional Convention, ostensibly for the purpose of creating amendmentshas not been used since the original drafting of the Constitution, and our Founders urged that it NOT be used. They knew from their own experience that a new Constitution had already been drafted (by James Madison, referred to as the Madison Plan in analytical writings) before the Convention to amend the Articles of Confederation even convened. Similarly a new Constitution, drafted decades ago, which abolishes States boundaries and turns the US into 10 regions governed by an entirely new system, with new branches of authority, and in conjunction with the United Nations, has already been written.2 Those who would think that some such scheme is not the ultimate ambition of promoters of a new Article V grand event are not paying attention to all the high-profile people who assisted in drafting the model now before us, and who are clamoring vigorously for a modern convention. In any case, the danger of an Article V Convention such as the Convention of States (that many uninformed people are pushing for) is contained in the English language used in Article V itself. The following text, along with the Reed-Kellogg diagram provided, parses Article V. A close study will illustrate that the Article makes itself absolutely clear without interference of constitutionalists, Constitutional lawyers, judges, or politicians. In short, the Constitution is conspicuously absent any politics whatsoever. The beauty of the diagram and the parsing is simply that the English language is the English language. It knows no party; the parsing has no agenda, there be no million dollar funding to be sure it is interpreted correctly, and it leaves within its clear language a distinct shortage of any wiggle room for debate. It says what it says, and amazingly enough, not a single word in Article V means anything different from what it meant over 200 years ago when it was written. Article V is a long complex sentence. A complex sentence is merely one sentence containing one independent clause and one or more dependent (subordinate) clauses. A clause is a construction consisting of a subject and a verb. An independent clause is a complete sentence that can stand alone. A subordinate clause is also a complete sentence but is made subordinate to the independent clause with the addition of a subordinating conjunction, a conjunctive adverb, a relative pronoun, or a relative adverb. Article V contains the independent clause and four subordinate clauses. (Words from the Article V are in italics rather than quotation marks for ease of reading.)

This New States Constitution is indeed a totally new structure for government. It has been included later in this document, along with additional information about the agenda of many proponents of a 21st Century Convention. Because this PDF file contains many full-page scans, it is a rather large (file size) document, and may take a while to download, primarily based on your Internet connection speed. Be patient for the download. (Also, you must have Adobe Acrobat reader to open this or other PDF files linked herein. Download the most recent reader directly from While most today think the notion for a Convention of States is a new idea to fix a broken Washington, such notion is anything but new. (Calls for a modern-day convention have been with us since the 1970's, under assorted pretexts.) This new model Constitution was drafted beginning in 1964 under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, a tax-exempt foundation. With over 100 contributors, and funded with over $2,500,000 annually during their project, their preliminary version was selectively reviewed in 1970. The final version was published in 1974 in The Emerging Constitution by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row publishers). It is unconscionable to perceive that such a monumental task as drafting this new model would be ignored in a modern Convention. Like Madison before, having the plan in place before opening the doors of the convention is a tactic totally consistent with the historical record, and completely within the vision of the American Founding Fathers, as the language of Article V bears out, and certainly does not prohibit.

Page 14 of 155

Article V begins with its independent clause: The Congress . . . shall propose amendments to this Constitution or. . . shall call a Convention for proposing amendments. Several words of the sentence are modified. We shall discuss them as they occur or in the most logical manner. Notice the subject of the clause is Congress, a third person noun, which is modified by the definite article The. The word the is the only definite article in the English language; when used, it identifies a specific substantive, thus carrying weight that an indefinite article a or an will not have. (Substantive is simply another word for a noun, but some words that are not nouns can function as though they were. The word substantive rather than simply noun covers any word functioning as a noun.) The word the when used throughout the article has the same definite effect as indicated here. (The noun Congress is specifically defined by the Constitution as the House of Representatives combined with the United States Senate. When functioning together, these two independent assembly bodies constitute Congress by the clear language of other parts of this Constitution. So there is no ambiguity with noun Congress, and particularly when coupled with the definite article the. We know which one they mean.) The main clause contains a compound verb, both parts of which are in the future obligatory tense. The Congress shall. . . propose amendments to this Constitution or . . . shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments. . . . The verb phrase shall propose has the direct object Amendments which is modified with an adjective prepositional phrase to this Constitution. The prepositional phrase identifies the kind of amendments that shall be proposed while the demonstrative pronoun this specifies which Constitution. The amendments shall be proposed to this constitution and no other.3 Further, the plural Amendments is used, signifying that this convention would be called not just to propose a single amendment, but for drafting an unspecified number thereof. The Convention would be left to itself to ascertain the number, and the subject matter, comprised within them. The word shall is also worthy of mention. When used with first person, the word simply indicates the future. When used with second and third person, in formal usage, the meaning changes; in second person, it is likely to be interpreted as a command. In third person, it expresses an explicit obligation. (See the footnote for detailed explanation of will vs shall.) Thus, under certain conditions, specified in the modifying clauses and phrases, the Congress shall propose Amendments OR shall call a Convention. Either option can be used, but each option has its own condition for when it must be used. The first verb phrase with its direct object contains an adverb subordinate clause linked to the verb phrase shall propose by the adverb whenever, which is functioning as a subordinate conjunction, and means at whatever time. This subordinate clause says whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary. The number two thirds is the subject, shall deem is the future tense verb phrase with the obligatory shall as its auxiliary, and it is the direct object of the verb phrase. Necessary is an adjective qualifying the direct object it, and whenever, along with providing the link to the verb in the main clause, modifies the verb phrase shall deem. (Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs and provide the information where, when, how, and to what extent the action of the verb phrase will apply). The subject two thirds is modified by the prepositional phrase of Houses, with Houses being specified by the adjective both. (As noted, both houses, when operating in a Constitutionally-appropriate manner, constitute the Congress.)

Given that fact that our the Articles of Confederation were completely replaced by this Constitution, is it impossible to assume anything other than a deliberate attempt on the part of the Founders to protect this Constitution from the same demise. The demonstrative pronouns are this, that, these, and those. The word that can also function as a relative pronoun. When used in the demonstrative case, these pronouns serve to point out or specify the antecedent. In this instance, and in the prepositional phrase modifying the word valid, the Founders specified this Constitution.

Page 15 of 155

The second verb phrase of the main clause is shall call. It is modified with an adverb prepositional phrase that provides the condition of such a call. The prepositional phrase on the application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States is broken down into four prepositional phrases, each modifying the one before it. Application is modified by of two thirds, which is modified by of Legislatures. The word Legislatures is modified by the prepositional phrase of States which is modified by the definite pronoun the and the adjective several. The coordinating conjunction or indicates that Congress can engage in either action, when the conditions for that action are met. Note that the condition for proposing amendments is different and separate from the condition for calling a convention. The verb phrase shall call has the direct object Convention. Convention is modified with the prepositional phrase for proposing amendments. For is the preposition; the object of the preposition is the gerund phrase proposing amendments. (A gerund is the present participle of a verb which always functions as a noun.4 Because it is a form of a verb, it can take its own direct object.) Proposing is the gerund, and its object is the substantive Amendments. Thus concludes that main clause and the first subordinate clause of Article V. From this point on, the Article consists of qualifying modifications in the form of three more subordinate clauses and numerous prepositional phrases. The 2nd dependent clause of the sentence modifies amendments, the direct object of the gerund proposing. It is a relative clause, so called because the connection is created with the relative pronoun which. The word which functions as the subject of the clause while referring directly back to Amendments. The verb phrase shall be is a linking verb followed by the predicate adjective valid.5 An adjective can be modified by an adverb or an adverb phrase. Thus valid is modified by three adverb prepositional phrases telling us to what extent, and where the amendments will be valid. The first prepositional phrase tells us that they will be valid in either case, referring to either of the two methods for proposing amendments. The second says they shall be valid to all intents and purposes, while the third says

Students often complain that for every rule in English, there is an exception. In many cases, that is true, but for those who understand grammar and syntax, English is marvelously consistent. For example, a gerund is formed by adding -ing to the base form of a word, thereby creating the present participle. While the present participle can also be an adjective or adverb modifier, whenever it forms a gerund, the gerund is ALWAYS a noun. There are no exceptions. Thus in this sentence, proposing, because it is a gerund, functions as a noun. A preposition by definition MUST have an object. Otherwise, it is simply an adjective or adverb, more often the latter. The object of a preposition MUST be a noun, pronoun or something acting like a noun or pronoun such as a gerund or infinitive, or even a noun clause. The traditional rules for using shall and will prescribe a highly complicated pattern for use in which the meanings of the forms change according to the person of the subject. In the first person, shall is used to indicate simple futurity: I shall have to buy another ticket. In the second and third persons, the same sense of futurity is expressed by will: The comet will return in 87 years. The use of will in the first person and of shall in the second and third may express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Thus I will leave tomorrow indicates that the speaker is determined to leave; You and she shall leave tomorrow is likely to be interpreted as a command. In America, however, will is used to express most of the senses reserved for shall in British usage, and shall itself is restricted to first person interrogative proposals, is in Shall we go? and to certain fixed expressions, such as We shall overcome. Shall is also used in a formal style to express an explicit obligation (emph. mine) as in Applicants shall provide a proof of residence. . . . Many early American writers observed the formal distinction between shall and will, and many continue to do so.

Page 16 of 155

they will be valid as Part of this Constitution. It is noteworthy that once again we have Constitution modified by the demonstrative pronoun this.6 The adjective valid is also modified with an adverb subordinate clause telling us when the amendments will be valid. The word when is the subordinate conjunction, but is also an adverb modifying have been ratified. The reader will notice three words that appear in parenthesis in the ratified clause (labeled 3") on the diagram. The clause is an elliptical construction. Elliptical clauses are used when the material that is not included is clear, easily understood, and does not require repetition. That is, the Constitution reads . . . valid when ratified. . . .At first glance the word ratified would seem to be a participle modifier.7 However, the only word it could modify is Amendments. Any other placement makes for a very awkward construction, but Amendments is too far away for clarity. Thus, the most logical conclusion, beginning with Amendments is to say Amendments which shall be valid when (they have been) ratified. The verb phrase (have been) ratified is modified by two adverb prepositional phrases that are vitally important in telling how the ratification is to take place. They can be ratified by either the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States or by convention in three-fourths, thereof. Notice this entire section modifies Amendments which have been proposed at a Convention. According to the construction of the sentence, the amendments can be ratified by the State Legislatures OR by three fourths of the Conventions. Notice the word Conventions is plural in this clause while it is singular in the main clause. Nowhere does the Article provide details as to the delegates at such conventions, regarding either how such delegates will be chosen or whether the Conventions that would do the ratifying are composed of the same individuals as those in the Convention for proposing the amendments in the first place. Nor is there any information as to how many delegates will be at such a

Since the framers specified that a Convention is only for the purpose of amending THIS Constitution, it is easy to assume that the Constitution itself is protected. A look at history will dispel such belief. The Amendment process alone allows for majorand often unwisechanges to the Constitution. The Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) for example, was ratified in 1919; the surge of the bootleg liquor industry soon demonstrated the foolishness of that amendment, but it lasted until 1933 when it was finally repealed. Also, the Constitution explicitly forbids direct taxes without apportionment, but because of the language of the 16th Amendment, many believe (in error) that the apportionment formula was somehow changed by virtue of the 16th. The larger issue here (forgetting the politics of the income tax for a moment) lies in the non-political aspects of ratification. Some historians argue that certain amendments were not actually ratified properly by the requisite number of states. Thus, while it appears on the surface that calling for a Convention for the purpose of Amendments is safe enough, a little forward thinking would create concern. What is there to prevent an amendment that repeals the First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth, for starters? What would prevent an amendment that would completely abolish the Bill of Rights. Such does not happen under the Amendment (rather than Convention) process because those in office have taken an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, and because any open proposal to do away with the Bill of Rights would be met with immediate uproar and election consequences. There is no rule saying that the delegates to a Convention would be required to take any such oath. And in a worst case scenario, what would prevent the delegates from creating an amendment saying that the old Constitution is null and void and is replaced with some new creation? The common argument is that it could not happen because the States would not ratify it. Look a little further. The State Legislatures dont have to do the ratifying. Congress can decide that the ratification will take place in Conventions. And in the case of the Constitution, some of the delegates to the Federal Convention returned home and became the ratifiers. (Verification for this is a simple matter of cross-referencing the list of the 55 original Federal Convention delegates to those of the state ratification bodies. This material is recorded in the five-volume set known as Elliots Debates. (Out of print, occasionally available from republishers, or in antiquarian book auctions such as ) The potential for conflict of interest is overt, and not protected against by the words of Article V. The words when ratified look and feel like a prepositional phrase, but this cannot be, because the word when is never a preposition; also ratified is a participle which, without auxiliaries, must function as a modifier rather than as an object of a preposition.

Page 17 of 155

Convention, whether States will have equal suffrage as they do in the Senate, or whether representation would be proportional. [see footnote 4] The final dependent clause of the sentence tells us that Congress will make the decision as to which Mode of Ratification will be used. The subordinate clause beginning with the subordinating conjunction as tells us that the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress. The adjective one modifies the first understood use of the Mode of Ratification, while the definite article and the adjective other modifies the second use of the same. The verb phrase may be proposed is modified by the adverb prepositional phrase by the Congress.8 Article V could end at this point, but the Founders included one additional adverb participial phrase beginning with the word provided. The phrase sets up two conditions for how the Mode of Ratification may be proposed. The two conditions form the compound direct object for the participle provided. The first condition is that no Amendment, which may be made prior to the Year 1808, shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article. Since we are well beyond 1808, we can ignore that half of the phrase. The second object of the participle, however, still applies: provided that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. This final phrase is the only protection specifically detailed for the States. Either mode of ratification can be chosen by the Congress, but neither the mode of ratification nor the amendments to be ratified shall deprive the States of their equal representation in the Senate.9

For those attempting to apply logic to politics, when one considers that the sole purpose of calling a convention purports to be to fix fundamental flaws either with the Constitution, or some of those operating under it, including Congress, it is somewhat beyond the realm of normal inductive reasoning or logic itself to reflect upon the reality that one of the greatest offenders of liberty would be Constitutionally in charge of either the Convention, the calling thereof, or of the ratification process for it. Such is indeed the case, where Article V is concerned, according to the very precise construction of the language it contains. This is an amazingly simple item of language, but its inclusion within Article V necessarily raises an entirely separate study, as there is now a need to articulate the grammatical components of the 17th Amendment to ascertain what, if anything, it amended as to Article V. A cursory reading of that Amendment reveals that in function, nothing other than the mode of their selection was altered. Indeed, when that review is undertaken, it is clear that the 17th Amendment did not repeal anything within Article V (particularly this clause), nor did it alter the job description of the United States Senators who are a separate house of the Congress as a co-equal (but integrated) component of federalism. The Senate is in place (according to other terms of Article I particularly) specifically for those legislative functions where the states must not only be represented in this Federal Assembly, but this Senate is to perform those aspects of legislative power where the mutual interests of the states themselves must contain a super-majority of votes (2/3) in order that they are able to act in their Senatorial capacity (i.e., binding the states into long-term treaties, confirming supreme Court nominees, etc.) Therefore, those who claim some states rights rationale for desiring a modern day convention need look no further than Article V to see that the states power in the United States Congress (specifically the Senate), still retains all its original constitutional powers to enforce the will of the states collectively in the federal legislature. Indeed, any State could put on their Senators the burden of introducing any Amendment(s) that state would proffer (consistent with the first option for proposing amendment(s) contained within Article V), without risking a wide-open, Article V Convention event (option 2). And in league with other states, Assemblies could circulate the rationale and dear colleague ideas encouraging other assemblies to likewise burden their Senators to co-sponsor and support such amendment(s) as they may feel meet to whatever circumstance is presenting itself. There is no shortage even of organizations acting as collectives of state interests, outside the Senate itself (American Legislative Exchange Council, National Conference of State Legislatures, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, etc.) wherein these notions for one or more Amendments could be proffered. Because in a modern context, however, United States Senators often act as representatives at large rather than as the suffrage in the federal assembly of the states from which they are sent, a minor side-bar study located in the appendix can provide a bit of additional insight as to a possible means of the states resolving the representative

Page 18 of 155

In conclusion, Article V both provides details of certain requirements for a convention and omits details. Both should be cause for inquiry and concern. First, here is what Article V DOES tell us. 1. Congress shall propose amendments whenever two thirds of both Houses agree that it is necessary. 2. Congress must call a Convention when two thirds of the State Legislatures apply for one. The Convention is for proposing amendments (plural) which shall be valid as part of THIS Constitution. 3. Article V allows for two different methods of ratification, the State Legislatures or three fourths of the Conventions. 4. Congress gets to choose the Mode of Ratification. 5. The States cannot be deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate. Here is what Article V does NOT tell us. 1. How will the delegates to the Convention be chosen? 2. How many delegates will represent each State? Will it be equal or proportional. If it is proportional, what will prevent smaller States from being outnumbered by States like California and New York? 3. On what criteria will Congress decide what Mode of Ratification to use? 4. While there is one phrase protecting the States, what means is provided to protect the people or to give them any real say in the process once it has been started? 5. Amendments may be ratified by conventions, in the plural. This is not THE Convention for proposing Amendments, but rather State Conventions to perform the ratifying. Who will prevent delegates to THE Convention from also being delegates to the State Conventions, thereby having the ability to ratify their own work? 6. Since Congress is ultimately in charge of both calling the Convention and of choosing the Mode of Ratification, what is there to prevent the Conventionwhich will be free to set its own rules at the time of conveningfrom introducing an entirely different Constitution and then having it ratified by Conventions, thereby cutting the citizenryand possibly the Statescompletely out of the loop? 7. While the Constitution specifies that Amendments are to be valid when added to THIS Constitution, what is there to prevent a body of people, working behind closed doors, from creating an Amendment to repeal the Bill of Rights, and then to also ratify that amendment as a delegate to the State Convention as indicated above? Finally, those who are hard at work to force Congress to call a Convention have some names of public individuals whom they claim are in agreement. Some of those people, like Sarah Palin, and Mark Levin, are good people who have done some good work. However, which of them can provide answers and solid guarantees regarding the issues Article V does not address?

at large behavioral issue, the notion of binding U.S. Senators to the will of their respective state Assemblies, etc.

Page 19 of 155

Is there any such thing as: A Limited Constitutional Convention or Convention of States or Conference of States, etc.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" (Shakespeare)
By Aaron Bolinger, co-Founder, the (Roger) Sherman Institute Instructor, Advanced Parliamentary Procedure, State & Federal Government Curricula, Constitution Studies, U.S. & World History, Theology

The following information is in review of a Ten-Point Fact Sheet prepared by Nick Dranias, Director, Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute Wherein is presented as fact a series of statements that are refuted by ample evidences.

Page 20 of 155

The Document Under Review (Page 1)

Page 21 of 155

The Document Under Review (page 2)

Page 22 of 155

INTRODUCTION A document floating about (Goldwater Institute, source) makes a series of statements they portend to be 10 Facts about a runaway Constitutional Convention. What we have here, in reality, is a collection of unsubstantiated assertions bearing near-zero substance in constitutional jurisprudence. Indeed, their assertion that any of these alleged facts substantiate a claim held that a convention will not exceed some specified constraints does not rise to the level of anything more than a collection of opinions, rubber stamped by an Institute as though authentic. In the realm of Political Science, and particularly where the stakes are as high as they are where the entire Constitution is concerned, one would think such an Institution would at least adhere to basic principles of logic in their statements. Instead, the only rules of dialog they have adhered to within this document seems to be the use of antithetical dialectic, and subverted logic, to prove the unprovable. Specifically, the document is tied to general notions that in themselves are laced with glittering generalities (statements lacking substance whatsoever), appeal to emotion (because situation x exists, we have to do something), appeal to novelty (hey, we discovered this, so lets do it), an appeal to numbers (so many people want to do this, it MUST be ok), appeal to fear (we have to do something, and if not, [y] is going to happen), begging the question (circular reasoning), failing to provide the requisite burden of proof of such assertions, false premises, and attempting to answer complex questions of law in a manner that addresses nothing near the depth required for proving, or even preponderating the evidence enough to tip the scale, that the convention proposed by the CSG, ALEC, et al., is, or will be, in some manner, limited. We will go through them numerically, and identify these problems. In the Conclusion, I will proffer that my primary objection to this fact sheet in question is not entirely the promotion of an Article V convention itself, but the deception being employed to make it happen, regardless of the consequences, and under the false premise that such an event can be somehow forcefully limited in its scope. I will also point out that many other options are available in lieu of a convention, and that the most important aspect of promoting a convention showing hard evidence that something is truly broken in the document itself is not present in this (or other) information coming from convention promoters. This final point what is broken is crucial to the dialog. If one is proposing one or more amendments to fix something, it is absolutely essential to identify the broken component. That Congress, the Executive Branch, the supreme Court, and the states themselves, are violating this contract known as the Constitution, is a given. But violations are not problems within the language of the document, and call for other types of fixing than a convention could achieve. Indeed, if one or more parties to this agreement violates it, no other language added to it can be expected to fix anything. In fairness to the Goldwater Institute, I will therefore grant that their fact sheet never purported to go into these aspects of convention mechanics. That said, it is absolutely essential for people to understand that the Goldwater Fact Sheet alone is totally insufficient as a lone source on which to base support for the notion of a Constitutional Convention. Moreover, even the runaway convention arguments they tackle are based on some rather weak suppositions as we shall show. REVIEW OF THE POINTS MADE IN THIS Fact Sheet #1 Article V does not authorize a constitutional convention; it authorizes a convention for proposing specific amendments. This is a compound sentence, claimed as fact, when a clear reading of Article V specifically contradicts the assertion. Of course, they could not actually write the language of this amendment, lest their assertion fall to pieces. The Amendment reads (in part): The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... Page 23 of 155

Notice the absence of a word they claim to be present specific. Nothing in this language says anything about specific amendments. It says propose Amendments. Basic English says the plural (amendments) is not singular, and certainly not specified as to what these amendments may be. A convention may take up anything the convention elects to propose, and in any quantity they see fit. There is nothing in this language limiting the scope of the convention, as their fact asserts. Ergo, their fact is, in reality, fiction. It is a fictitious statement posing as a fact, completely unsubstantiated and contradicted by the language of Article V itself. It is misleading, does not meet the requisite burden of proof required of such an assertion, and is embellished with a non-existent term apparently for the purpose of deception. #2 When the Founders drafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they specifically rejected language for Article V that would have allowed the states to later call for an open convention. Nothing I can find in James Madisons notes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 backs up this socalled fact. The debate on some of the language that eventually became Article V occurred on Monday, June 11, 1787, where this is recorded: The thirteenth resolution, for amending the national Constitution, hereafter, without consent of the national legislature, being considered, several members did not see the necessity of the resolution at all, nor the propriety of making the consent of the national legislature unnecessary. Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments, therefore, will be necessary; and it will be better to provide for them in an easy, regular, and constitutional way, than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the national legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their assent on that very account. The opportunity for such an abuse may be the fault of the Constitution calling for amendment. Mr. RANDOLPH enforced these arguments. The words without requiring the consent of the national legislature, were postponed. The other provision in the clause passed, nem. con. Therefore, the assertion of the fact itemized as #2 in this report seems to be a figment of someones imagination, and amounts to the creating of purported facts that are unsubstantiated by the record of the Convention which drafted the language of Article V. Indeed, this argument appears to fit into the class of historical revisionism. #3 Thirty eight (38) states must ratify any proposal from an amendments convention, requiring a broad consensus that makes sure an amendments convention cannot runaway. This is not a fact, but an interpretation based on a single possibility. Article V actually states (continuing from the ... above): which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Page 24 of 155

There are, in reality TWO possible modes of ratification, just within the language of Article V itself, with yet another on the periphery. The burden of proof rests with the one asserting a fact as such. The states themselves (meaning the state legislatures), or by conventions, constitute the actual ways in which the product of a convention is to be reviewed. No where in this fact has the author identified what constitutes a ratification convention. This is a huge omission. Making a blanket statement as #3 above, without clearly identifying the options, is, again, either wishful thinking, claiming the power of clairvoyance to ascertain which mode Congress would choose for ratification, and further claiming even greater clairvoyant powers to know the trustworthiness and character of each person exercising suffrage, be they in a state assembly OR in a ratification convention, or merely it might just be an inability to parse the Queens English in such manner as to make sense of a quite coherent constitutional sentence. But one other option seems to escape the prospects of the Goldwater document author. The Articles of Confederation required (in their rules to the 1787 convention) that ALL extant states ratify the amendments coming from the convention (100%). The authors of this Constitution, however, changed the ratification process within their own document, thereby circumventing the previously required ratification process. Because a Convention is a sovereign assembly, they have the right to do this again, in a new convention, should it be called. Funny how this fact fails to mention this third option, which is completely possible (and even likely) to make sure the convention gets their way with their proposals. Therefore, the fact of this item #3 fails (again) the test of burden of proof, it omits essential realities of political assemblies of this nature, and uses glittering generalities to assert its fantasy. By omitting the peripheral possibilities, a person non-conversant with assemblies of all these styles is missing crucial information for their decision-making about the wisdom of a convention. In theory, at least, if Tea Party supporters comprise the amendments convention, the powers that be could put Acorn styled groups in charge of the ratification process. #4 The limited scope of an amendments convention is underscored by the fact that it specifically says amendments cannot alter the equal number of votes for each state in the U.S. Senate without the consent of the affected state. This establishes that an Article V convention couldnt simply rewrite the entire Constitution. At best, this fact makes an assertion that an existing constitutional amendment (the 17th) virtually nullifies. The removal of state legislatures from the process of selecting the Senators of each state has, for all intents and purposes, denied the states their suffrage in the Federal Assembly already. While this subject requires tomes of additional material to properly understand, the opening of this can of worms by the Goldwater Institute requires it, if they are to prove their assertion. However, and even without going into another 20 pages of discussion on the powers of the states to control their U.S. Senators, their assertion in this case is troubling. (Request my U.S. Senate Accountability Issue Brief for more detail on this situation.) With this (17th Amendment) precedent in place, few people today, except perhaps for myself, regard the current U.S. Senate as representatives of the states from which these Senators hail. No process is in place whereby the states hold these Senators accountable to their Assemblies, no binding resolutions direct their suffrage in Washington, no state has asked for the impeachment of a Senator for failing to appropriately represent the states will in Washington, and likewise no reasonable jurist would consider this Constitutional stricture on amendments any more binding in todays world than would be noticed in proposing an amendment for a balanced federal budget, when the existing constitution provides ample means for that end to be achieved. The fact is, constitutional provisions are habitually ignored, and any amendment that even redefined the boundaries of states, if coming from a convention, would not be any more or less interesting, despite constitutional provisions respecting the means by which states are to be admitted to the Union. But their 4th argument contradicts itself, and provides an opening for still more contradictions. If an affected state consents (which is itself a legal interpretation nightmare in both overt act(s) and/or by omission), what state would fail to render its consent where the promise of money may be involved? Since this Page 25 of 155

is how our modern state assemblies work refusing to nullify federal acts for fear of losing federal revenues by what stretch of logic can the Goldwater author assert that suddenly the ratification bodies will get religion and say no to any destructive idea coming from a convention, and particularly so when such big financial interests are in play with this convention? Surely, Mr. Dranias, you jest! Calling THIS numbered statement a fact is the epitome of hypocrisy. #5 The states define the agenda of an amendments convention through their applications for the convention and through the commission of delegates. Amendments conventions can be limited to specific topics. This fact forgets may things, but lets find a starting point. Lets say, for sake of the argument, 34 states pass exactly the same limiting language in their calls for a convention. Congress calls the convention. All 50 states are invited. The sixteen states that did NOT set any limits on their delegates, but merely sent folks because a convention is happening, cannot have their behavior limited in such a way. This is like the gentleman who promises his wife that he is going to the ballpark for the specific and exclusive purpose of buying a hot dog. If a game starts, he promises to leave. So what? The ball game goes on without your cheers or other input. This entire argument does not even rise to the level of flimsy. The fact that one or even 34 states may declare it a felony, with a tar and feather clause for punishment if the convention delegates exceed their limited authority, neglects identifying who would enforce such a law. There is a major jurisdictional problem. The delegates of Maryland, for example, are not bound by such a law passed by Ohio. At best, the convention would begin under extreme circumstances of stress and animosity, much as were the opening salvos at the 1787 convention. Knowing how Assemblies function even at their best, (having been a spectator at many state legislative meetings over the past 30 years) such guidelines passed by one, or even 34 states, are useless bones of contention. That is because every sovereign assembly sets its own rules. It would be more appropriate not to even try to lay such stumbling-blocks before the delegates, so they could get on with the real business at hand. Congress sets its own rules, in each House, with each new election cycle. Each state does so as well, and with every new election cycle. Check any state assembly, and look for an HR1" or SR1" type of resolution, and you will find the rules of the House or Senate for that year/session. A convention, under Article V, would be a co-equal branch of federal authority. Neither the Executive of the United States, the supreme Court of the United States, nor the Congress itself, can constrain it. Congress exists under Article I. The Executive Exists under Article II. The Courts exist under Article III. The States (continued to) exist under Article IV, and the Convention is a creature of Article V. They are all co-equal branches, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of NONE of the other branches of Federal authority. They will set their own rules, and their own agenda. What comes of them, comes of them, including the ratification process itself. The burden of proof required for #5 to be considered a statement of fact therefore fails miserably, under any cursory understanding of authority, jurisdiction of law, sovereignty of assemblies, and for a plethora of other reasons. At best, #5 is a misunderstanding. At worst, it is a deliberate attempt to deceive. State limits are moot. Congressional limits are moot. The convention, as a sovereign and co-equal branch of government, is on its own. #6 The Constitution was sold by the Founders to the ratifying states on the basis that they retained their ultimate authority over the federal government through their Article V amendment powers. James Madison in Federalist No. 43 specifically argued that states should use the power to correct errors in the Constitution. And Alexander Hamilton in the final argument of the Federalist Papers, in Federalist No. 85, said the Article V amendment process was the means by which the states would rein in an out-of-control federal government. One cannot take the Constitution seriously and contend that Article V was not meant to be used. It is a critical and deal closing element of the balance of power created by the Constitution. Page 26 of 155

This item constitutes the first real attempt at articulating a rational cause for pressing the Constitutions self-destruct button. The rhetoric is curious, and does actually (and finally) point at least to the Federalist Papers. However, what the average reader might miss, who has not read these Federalist Paper numbers, is that the standard amendment process of Article V Congress passing an amendment, and submitting it to the states directly is equally effective, was the subject matter of much of the monologues in these Federalist numbers, and has been used to correct defects (or get us in even crazier situations, such as the Prohibition Amendment), for the past 200+ years, without the other event a full-blown constitutional convention ever occurring. This argument also neglects that the Federalist Papers themselves were something of promotional literature intended to elicit ratification. Though quite useful in many aspects of constitutional research, it is a mistake to rely entirely upon them, as the state ratification conventions themselves, and many other aspects of constitutional understanding should be brought into the discussion. For brevity, I will grant the intended level of insight from them. Article V provides two means of Amendment Congress submitting a proposed amendment to the states, and a convention to propose the plural amendments. Why cannot the states, if an amendment or amendments be necessary, direct and bind their United States Senators to introduce whatever language for an amendment or amendments their state legislature directs? It appears that the classic bait and switch is being employed, where the convention itself is the end desired, not one or more specific amendment(s). The argument employed by the writer of this fact is (unfortunately) yet another deliberate confusion of cause and effect. What the fact writer failed to do, again, is prove the point that the Constitution is so irretrievably broken as to require massive surgery to correct horrific flaws. The much simpler (and real) fact that such people could easily prove is that absolute and total disobedience to the provisions and existing strictures of the Constitution is the proximate cause of the effects we now behold in the public spectacle that is American National Governance. To prove that the Article V convention is the ONLY (or best) means remaining to correct abuses from Washington requires establishing: first, that all other methods have been tried; and second, that the Constitution is horribly broken. In point of fact, scarce few State Legislators even know the very real and useful constitutional powers they possess (much less have they flexed these atrophied muscles). In Federalist #43, for example, which the author of the fact sheet points to specifically, a very important tenet of federalism is articulated which, unfortunately, the author fails to even mention. This tenet is covered in the very section pertaining to Madisons discussion on Art. V: A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. I would try to expound upon this further, but it is impossible. With such utter violations of the Constitution present among the parties to it, the document is, for all intents and purposes, void as it stands. All that remains is an official declarative statement to that effect. (In deference to Madison, he concludes #43 with an appeal to moderation and prudence. These are things convention proponents would likewise display wisdom by observation thereto.) A specific punch list of constitutional violations that occur on a daily basis in Washington could (and should) be articulated by the fact writer (or more specifically, the state legislatures), who must then prove that these violations require major surgery to prevent in the future. If, for example, the argument wants to be put forward, as some convention proponents do, that the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed, where can it be shown that, as was done with the Prohibition (18th) Amendment, an amendment was provided to repeal this (17th) and Congress rejected submission to the states for it? Only when all avenues have been expended should the American people (and the world) be subjected to the slings and arrows of a full-blown convention. Burden of proof not met, even for this small item, how be it that Page 27 of 155

available remedies have been exhausted for the many Washingtonian problems where other available remedies await trial? Is it a fix that convention proponents truly seek, or is the convention itself the end sought, regardless of the prevarication required to obtain it under these (and like) false pretenses? And if so, why? At the risk of doing their job for them, I will articulate but one more such instance. Where the budget is concerned, Congress is required by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 that: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. Who, other than the conventioneers assembled in 1787, could write in a more perspicuous tone? Yet how long has it been since an actual budget (forget the balanced part of it) has been proposed and passed by Congress? This amounts to a flagrant congressional flaunting of a basic tenet of public trust. No business could possibly borrow money unless its accounting was in order. No bank would give them a dime, nor would they be trustworthy enough to open a common checking account. Yet from time to time as used in the Constitution clearly means annually or, from year to year as the year is the fundamentally-understood unit of measure of time itself. Indeed, such phrase is downright biblical in character, where such language as time, times and dividing of time (Dan. 12:7, etc.) is universally interpreted by grammarians as three and one half years. Such language was understood by the Constitutions Framers, all themselves astute in the grammatical arts, and the practice (an annual congressional budget) was implemented upon adoption of the Constitution. Yet how many recent years have we had continuing resolutions (not law in the constitutional sense) to absolve them of their fiduciary obligation to account to the people for what they are spending, and where they are obtaining it? Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7, remains the corrective mechanism for the budget dilemma, including the $500 hammers (misappropriation of public funds) acquired by the Department of Defense. What constitutional amendment proposed by a convention could provide more clear, precise wording for a requirement on Congress to have and hold to an annual budget, than the language of Article 1, 9, Cl. 7? As a practical matter, one must question whether a habitually-perjurious Congress would abide by any such amendment if it were drafted. There becomes the quandary. The Constitution, clearly, is not broken, at least in the case of the Congressional Budget quackery we now observe, and which forms much of the rhetorical backdrop for the supposed need for a convention to draft a so-called balanced budget amendment. What is broken is the oath of office taken by the congressmen themselves. This constitutes de facto perjury, among other crimes against the people. Centering on this predicament brings us back full-circle to the United States Senate, which is one half of the collective known as Congress. As part of the Congress, if the states would perform their obligation, holding their Senators accountable to the strictures of the Constitution, then this budget problem would go away. Moreover, the states already have it within their power to hold their Senators accountable, and compel them to be their suffrage in the federal assembly, notwithstanding the 17th Amendment. Finding one state legislator out of a hundred who understands this, however, is as daunting a task as locating a fact from the Fact Sheet that is, in fact, a fact. So now we are asked to trust a convention of states to tinker with such precise constitutional language, when they are themselves so unfamiliar with it as to allow Congress to abdicate its fiduciary responsibility to the people of their respective states? The rules of logic do not even define such a mockery of the mental exercises required to convince us that such a convention, in this temper of public ignorance of constitutional mandates, would provide anything useful after going through the exercises required to stage such an event. I posit that we need not a new Constitution, nor any amendments. Lets try a bit of obedience to it for a few years, and see if things dont clear up on their own. Page 28 of 155

The states should clearly define, if necessary, state law on perjury to include violation of oath of office, and begin prosecution for the state crimes evinced by such practices. Compel United States Senators to impeach members of the Executive and Judiciary branches that equally circumvent constitutional strictures, usurp powers not possessed, or that commit other such clearly unconstitutional acts and omissions. Indeed, as the fact expositor concludes, Article V was meant to fix any errors. On that I will concur. The burden of proving that the flaws in government that exist are constitutional, however, rests squarely on the proponents of a convention. Propose the amendment(s) as you will, and indeed use the Amendment process that Article V otherwise contains to implement them. If this fails, then think of the convention option, having also an educated group of potential candidates to comprise this convention. Thus far, we are not seeing any proposals from the mainstream sources that have the language requisite to actually fix a purported constitutional problem, nor have we seen any indication of what the purported Constitutional problem is, or problems (plural) are. We do, however, see plenty of instances of disobedience to it, and tomes of rhetoric pushing for a grand event of historic magnitude, based on an alleged need to fix an antiquarian historic document. The later is more ad hominem or red herring in argumentative style than substantive. If one cannot properly read the language of the Constitution, seek the input of a grammarian. The convention is an entirely different colored horse. Circular reasoning, as evinced by the purported facts contained within this document, does not prove the necessity of a convention. Such burden of proof is on the maker. Indeed, with even the Federalist Papers referenced, the arguments about Article V lean more towards using the first (congressional amendment) provision to make any needful fixes, than opening a fullscale convention to do so. Moreover, James Madison, the father of the Constitution itself, is quoted thus: Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned ... Whatever statements he may have made promoting the Constitution itself, in the Federalist Papers or otherwise, were at least conditioned by this statement from a letter he penned to George Turberville, in November of 1788. He knew, as well as any man alive, the struggles facing a convention. He also understood a new event of such magnitude would be equally (if not more so) in the present temper of America, likewise under extreme stress. Funny how this fact of History is omitted by modern Con Con proponents. #7 There is zero precedent that any convention of the states has ever runaway from its assigned agenda. There have been 12 interstate conventions in the history of our country. All of them stayed within their stated agenda. Even the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was not convened to amend the Articles of Confederation, but to revise and alter the Articles to establish an effective national government. This was fully consistent with the Articles of Confederation because the Articles authorized alterations a term that had revolutionary significance because it echoed the language of the Declaration of Independence. The broad purpose of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was specifically mentioned in the call of Congress and in nearly all of the commissions for the delegates for each state. The 1787 convention did not runaway at all; it did what it was charged to do like all interstate conventions preceding it. Item seven (recited above) actually contains seven sentences, each of them a statement. And like other statements of this document in question, the statements maker fails to meet any burden of documentation or proof of the quality or factual nature of any of the statements contained within it. In reply to sentence 1, there has only every been ONE federal constitutional convention in recorded history, at a fully national level. It occurred in 1787. If any precedents exist, it would be found in this single event. Other references are moot, or red herrings in logical understanding. Page 29 of 155

In sentence two, the author alludes to 12 interstate conventions, but fails to identify them. In reality, there have probably been thousands of interstate conventions because by definition, any meeting of officials between any two or more states could be construed as some sort of interstate event. For example, if a parcel of land resting in one state is purchased by a municipality sitting in another, as often happens when lake impoundments of water are owned by a water company belonging to a municipal operation, the meeting of the two states involved is necessary to solidify an agreement over jurisdiction, expenses relating to it, and etc. Therefore ... When in sentence # 3 it is proffered that these 12 interstate conventions stayed within their agenda, giving no specific evidence as to what conventions are incorporated by reference, or the purpose for which these interstate meetings took place, the burden of proving that any such conventions outcome would have any precedential impact on a modern-day, full scale, federal constitutional convention, is absent. Sentence #4 posits that the purpose of the 1787 convention was to establish an effective national government. Based on the writings of Anti-Federalist authors, the tenor of the debates in the state conventions that ratified the Constitution, and tomes of historical material readily available for research, such statement leaps beyond the absurd. The mere notion of switching from fully federal to national in the form of American governance was contained in no writing of states sending delegates to this 1787 convention. The type of argument articulated in this sentence forces a person to accept a negative, as the affirmative is prima facie unplausible to the contention. We say so, therefore it must be true, exists in no form of polite debate nor is it an accepted premise of argument. Indeed, the evidence provided by Anti-Federalist writers, and the state conventions, indicates utter shock that this 1787 convention, comprised of delegates under very strict orders to confine themselves to amending the Articles of Confederation (not as asserted, to create a new national government) had come up with the type of plan they offered at the conclusion of their event. On reading the credentials of the deputies, it was noticed that those from Delaware were prohibited from changing the article in the Confederation establishing an equality of votes among the states. (May 25, notes of James Madison) On May 30, the following exchange among delegates occurred: Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY wished to know of Mr. Randolph, whether he meant to abolish the state governments altogether. Mr. RANDOLPH replied, that he meant by these general propositions merely to introduce the particular ones which explained the outlines of the system he had in view. Mr. BUTLER said, he had not made up his mind on the subject, and was open to the light which discussion might throw on it. After some general observations, he concluded with saying, that he had opposed the grant of powers to Congress heretofore, because the whole power was vested in one body. The proposed distribution of the powers with different bodies changed the case, and would induce him to go great lengths. Gen. PINCKNEY expressed a doubt whether the act of Congress recommending the Convention, or the commissions of the deputies to it, would authorize a discussion of a system founded on different principles from the Federal Constitution. Mr. GERRY seemed to entertain the same doubt. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and a Page 30 of 155

national supreme government; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties, the latter having a complete and compulsive operation. He contended, that in all communities there must be one supreme power, and one only. Mr. MASON observed, not only that the present Confederation was deficient in not providing for coercion and punishment against delinquent states, but argued very cogently, that punishment could not, in the nature of things, be executed on the states collectively, and therefore that such a government was necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would punish those only whose guilt required it. Mr. SHERMAN admitted that the Confederation had not given sufficient power to Congress, and that additional powers were necessary; particularly that of raising money, which, he said, would involve many other powers. He admitted, also, that the general and particular jurisdictions ought in no case to be concurrent. He seemed, however, not to be disposed to make too great inroads on the existing system; intimating, as one reason, that it would be wrong to lose every amendment by inserting such as would not be agreed to by the states. It was moved by Mr. READ, and seconded by Mr. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY, to postpone the third proposition last offered by Mr. Randolph, viz., that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary, in order to take up the following, viz.: Resolved, that, in order to carry into execution the design of the states in forming this Convention, and to accomplish the objects proposed by the Confederation, a more effective government, consisting of a legislative, executive, and judiciary, ought to be established. The motion to postpone for this purpose was lost. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, South Carolina, ay, 4; New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, no, 4. On the question, as moved by Mr. BUTLER, on the third proposition, it was resolved, in committee of the whole, that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, ay, 6; Connecticut, no, 1; New York, divided, (Colonel Hamilton, ay, Mr. Yates, no.) If, as the Goldwater Institute writer supposes, that the purpose of the convention (from the perspective of the states sending to it their delegates) was to create a national government, such intent would have certainly been well-known by all the delegates in the convention. Why then the comments above by Mssrs. Pickeney, Butler, et al.? Clearly the Convention was treading into unfamiliar waters. And while perhaps within the general scope of some of their perceived mission statements, such was certainly NOT the case for them all, nor were they at all comfortable going to the lengths proposed by the Madison plan for this new style of government. Such a blanket statement as Item #7 is therefore far less clear-cut than supposed by its presenters, and moreover constitutes a deceptive practice in their argument for a conventions ability to be limited in its scope. The authorized alterations (i.e. Amendment) for the Articles of Confederation contained within its own terms, is a given. On that point we may have found the first or second fact properly couched within this Page 31 of 155

document thus far. (Neither prove the assertion, however. The misappropriation of fact is a common element of Con Con proponents, and has been for the past 30 years.) However, as can clearly be seen, the product of the convention was no collection of amendments tacked onto the extant language of the Articles of Confederation. An entirely new document emerged from this convention. Therefore, and in direct contrast to the argument presented by the Goldwater Institute, the only true federal convention did indeed runaway. The other (12) events referred to in this item #7 did not constitute a federal constitutional convention under any stretch of fantasy, and their primary thesis was not only unsubstantiated, but is clearly refuted by the historic record, and in the words of the attendees themselves. Indeed, if any evidence is to be found about the excess employed by this one and only ever in history federal convention, the words of two more of the attendees Robert Yates and John Lansing, delegates from New York in a letter to their Governor (George Clinton) explaining their departure from this convention, ought to suffice (underlining emphasis mine):
We beg leave, briefly, to state some cogent reasons, which, among others, influenced us to decide against a consolidation of the states. These are reducible into two heads: -1st. The limited and well-defined powers under which we acted, and which could not on any possible construction, embrace an idea of such magnitude as to assent to a general constitution, in subversion of that of the state. 2nd. A conviction of the impracticability of establishing a general government, pervading every part of the United States, and extending essential benefits to all. Our powers were explicit, and confined to the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting such alterations and provisions therein, as should render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the Union. From these expressions, we were led to believe that a system of consolidated government could not, in the remotest degree, have been in contemplation of the legislature of this state; for that so important a trust, as the adopting measures which tended to deprive the state government of its most essential rights of sovereignty, and to place it in a dependent situation, could not have been confided by implication; and the circumstance, that the acts of the Convention were to receive a state approbation in the last resort, forcibly corroborated the opinion that our powers could not involve the subversion of a Constitution which, being immediately derived from the people, could only be abolished by their express consent, and not by a legislature, possessing authority vested in them for its preservation. Nor could we suppose that, if it had been the intention of the legislature to abrogate the existing confederation, they would, in such pointed terms, have directed the attention of their delegates to the revision and amendment of it, in total exclusion of every other idea. Reasoning in this manner, we were of opinion that the leading feature of every amendment ought to be the preservation of the individual states in their uncontrolled constitutional rights, and that, in reserving these, a mode might have been devised of granting to the Confederacy, the moneys arising from a general system of revenue, the power of regulating commerce and enforcing the observance of foreign treaties, and other necessary matters of less moment. Exclusive of our objections originating from the want of power, we entertained an opinion that a general government, however guarded by declarations of rights, or cautionary provisions, must unavoidably, in a short time, be productive of the destruction of the civil liberty of such citizens who could be effectually coerced by it, by reason of the extensive territory of the United States, the dispersed situation of its inhabitants, and the insuperable difficulty of controlling or counteracting the views of a set of men (however unconstitutional and oppressive their acts might be) possessed of all the powers of government, and who, from their remoteness from their constituents, and necessary permanency of office, could not be supposed to be uniformly actuated by an attention to their welfare and happiness; that, however wise and energetic the principles of the general government might be, the extremities of the United States could not be kept in due submission and obedience to its laws, at the distance of many hundred miles from the seat of government; that, if the general legislature was composed of so numerous a body of men as to represent the interests of all the inhabitants of the United States, in the usual and true ideas of representation, the expense of supporting it would become intolerably burdensome; and that, if a few only were vested with a power of legislation, the interests of a great majority of the inhabitants of the United States must necessarily be unknown; or, if known, even in the first stages of the operations of the new government, unattended to. These reasons were, in our opinion, conclusive against any system of consolidated government: to that recommended by the Convention, we suppose most of them very forcibly apply. It is not our intention to pursue this subject farther than merely to explain our conduct in the discharge of the trust which the honorable legislature reposed in us. Interested, however, as we are, in common with our fellow citizens, in the result, we cannot forbear to declare, that we have the strongest apprehensions, that a government so organized, as that recommended by the convention, cannot afford that security to equal and permanent liberty which we wished to make an invariable object of our pursuit.

Page 32 of 155

We were not present at the completion of the new constitution; but before we left the convention, its principles were so well established as to convince us, that no alteration was to be expected to conform it to our ideas of expediency and safety. A persuasion, that our further attendance would be fruitless, and unavailing, rendered us less solicitous to return. We have thus explained our motives for opposing the adoption of the national constitution, which we conceived it our duty to communicate to your Excellency, to be submitted to the consideration of the honorable legislature. We have the honor to be, With the greatest respect, Your Excellency's Most obedient, and Very humble servant, Robert Yates, John Lansing, jun.

#8 The procedures for conducting an amendments convention are similar to Congress long-established rulemaking powers. Constitutional text, language and custom make clear that Congress calls the convention, setting a time and location; states appoint delegates by way of resolutions and commissions (or general state law); delegates initially vote as states at the convention; and majority votes will decide what amendments are proposed for ratification. An amendments convention is simply an interstate task force. In this statement shines more truth or fact than any other yet. However, what is not said (in this argument particularly) is as important, or more important, than the substance it contains. Omission is the sin here. Further, it presents an irrelevant red herring type of argument, where a concept being discussed is more a distraction than substantiation of a premise. (Or, again, this may amount to a misappropriation of a fact for purpose of deception.) For example, the word initially is found in sentence 2 (pertaining to how votes are counted). What happens following the adoption of internal rules, after this initial phase runs its course? This discussion/consideration is omitted completely. (Not that such consideration is really of a highly interesting nature in itself, but this bears out the circular or diversionary argument applied whereby apples and oranges are proverbially combined, perhaps with an intention to create an illusion of authenticity, or support, for the notion of a convention.) As a co-sovereign federal authority & assembly, which a convention actually is, like Congress, and like the states, the first order of business is the adoption of their own rules of proceeding. That initially the delegates may vote as a unit on behalf of their state, it is self-evident from Madisons notes of the first convention. However, on many occasions the states were divided on major (and minor) issues of importance. So charged was the atmosphere that on July 5, Yates and Lansing, delegates of New York, left the convention in disgust (for the reasons articulated so eloquently above). The impact of this departure was not that the convention saw the error of their ways and corrected their runaway conduct. On the contrary, the convention went on without the participation of the New York delegates, that may have had additional contributions to make, had they stayed and played the game of excess with their counterparts. So what would a modern conventions initial rules look like? Perhaps a peek into a very recent (2013) document laying out the guidelines for a STATE (South Carolina) constitutional convention is more realistic than the fact sheets writers previous reliance on a dozen so-called interstate conventions (Item #7 of the fact sheet). Linked HERE, this shows that for the initial meeting, the states chief supreme court justice is installed in the chairmans slot. (What would happen to the notion of constraining the judiciary if the sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Roberts, was made chair of the federal convention?) The Jeffersons Manual of Parliamentary Procedure is installed as the basic rule book. Etc. Knowing contemporary thinking is far more interesting to the notions of having a conservative convention than looking even to the precedential history of the 1787 event. Further, ascribing the moniker interstate task force to such an event is a bit hyperbolic, albeit potentially realistic, considering the probability of a runaway convention. This is perhaps a literary device of Page 33 of 155

the author, designed more to elicit some form of authority to the event, whereby the public contemporaneously perceives task forces as salutary toward governance, in that they are under some form of official directive as to their task (singular) at hand. Applying, however, the singular (task) adjective to a convention is deceptive, as the task is, in reality, a pluralistic concept involving constitutional powers (plural) of money, taxation, authority, statess rights, and a shopping list of constitutional provisions, all under the microscope of such an autonomous, and deliberately uncontrollable (by other authority) event. If anyone was ever in a position to render an opinion on the ability of a convention to be constrained inside of some man-made box, Former Chief Justice Warren Burger sits as likely as any for the distinction. In a letter dated January 30, 1987, he stated:

So much for any Congressional, or even state, rule-making over the convention grand waste of time notwithstanding.

#9 The limited scope of an amendments convention is similar to that of state ratification conventions that are also authorized in Article V, but no one worries about a ratification convention running away, even though such a convention does make law. I revel in the superfluity of this sentence. No one has ever accused a ratification convention of running away, as such deliberative body actually does NOT make law as the presenter implies. Their sole purpose is, and no other, ratification. Perhaps it could be argued that they confirm the legal language of the convention, or enact the (constitutional) law(s) proposed. They have only a yes or no decision to make. Even if they do propose additional amendments (for clarity or otherwise), their suggestions are without any force of law. The presenter of this fact has one point correct within it no one worries about a ratification convention running away. We do, however, have every reason to fear a runaway GENERAL convention. If the point of this fact sheet is to argue in favor of a convention, and prove it has no ability to, in fact, run away, this item (#9) fails in ways that would make even a Freshman-level rhetorician walk away giggling. The red herring is again, overt. Page 34 of 155

#10 An amendments convention, because it only proposes amendments and does not make law, is not an effective vehicle for staging a government takeover. Let me get this straight (if that be possible). In item #9, the writer says that a ratification convention does make law (which it does not). Then, in #10, he states as fact that an amendment convention does not make law (which indeed it can). To say the logic is warped, that fantasy has completely taken over, and that this document is as factual as a professional wrestling match, could be too gentle. But giving the writer the benefit of the doubt, as much as it pains me in this case, perhaps the operative word used in this alleged fact would be the adjective effective. If another adjective were substituted, and the sentence were slightly truncated, then item #10 would be a fact. It should be worded thus: An amendments convention is the only vehicle for staging a government takeover. Many people, unhappy with the limits of the Constitution on their official behavior, have commented on these restrictions derogatorily. Those with political ambitions above their grasp frequently make such statements as this: "Let us face reality. The framers have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to 'turn the founders upside down' to put together what they put asunder we must directly confront the Constitutional structure they erected ... " James M Burns, p.160 Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System. The only vehicle that can directly confront the Constitutional structure they erectedis an Article V Convention of states. It alone can effect a full government takeover. Of the many radical proposals for change presented over the past century, none were either appropriate, nor proper, for inclusion within the fundamental charter of our general government. To pass these measures, the ONLY vehicle that can achieve the goal of those who would turn the founders upside down lies in a convention, such as proposed by the contemporary CSG, ALEC, and like groups. Though most of the current promoters of a convention are of the conservative ilk, hopeful for such things as states rights and additional protections on personal liberty to come from a modern convention, writers and activists on the radical left are quite hopeful for a convention as well. Unfortunately, there is no way to guarantee that any particular bent of ideology will control such an event as a plurality or majority. Indeed, the left welcomes such an event, and smirks at conservatives for their gullibility. For example, Gore Vidal is quoted in San Francisco as saying:

Further, many of the modern promoters of an Article V event (specifically a Convention, rather than a standard amendment) are totally unaware that an entire replacement constitution has already been drafted, and Page 35 of 155

that the movement for a Convention is not at all of recent origin. The efforts expended over a full decade, at a cost of over $25 million, and contributed to by over 100 people, are laid out in what has been dubbed the New States Constitution. "In the event you would be inclined to dismiss the relevance of the proposed new constitution, bear in mind that it is the product of a tax-exempt think-tank which took ten years, $25,000,000.00 and the collaboration of over one-hundred like-minded individuals. . . It would be folly to believe this investment is intended to be merely an exercise in political theory. The frightening reality is, the planners are serious in their efforts to impose a new constitution upon the people of America as we enter the 21st Century." Col. Arch Roberts, Committee to Restore the Constitution In 1942, constitutional scholar Henry Hazlitt authored A New Constitution Now in book form. This was part of the political dialectic, needed to get public opinion swayed toward such a thing. With this momentum, think tanks began their work on such a revision of this outdated mode of governance. Quotes from this book, showing the radical agenda of transforming our nation from one of a representative republic, into a parliamentary democracy, include:

Some might not see what Burns is suggesting. Cutting through the rhetoric, a convention is a simpler way to achieve the goal (implementing this parliament for America).

In simple terms, the government proposed by Burns in this paragraph represents the ultimate in having a new system that self-destructs on a rather routine basis. It is perfect for those wanting to easily control various branches of government, but antithetical in every way to a Constitutional republic. It seems more suited for third-world status nations, than a world leader of any flavor. Then, another book, entitled The Emerging Constitution was released in 1974 (First Edition, Harpers Magazine Press, ISBN- 0061282251) actually containing the verbiage of this New States Constitution. Modern conservatives would do well to actually read it (this new Constitution), and compare the rights secured by the first, with the privileges this new government would conditionally give to the masses. It creates entirely new branches of government. That document is reprinted, in its entirety, in a companion Issue Brief. The 2nd Amendment is gutted entirely, with only military and police having the right to bear arms. Other typical American liberties have been couched with an except in a declared emergency clause. Conservatives need to know the content of this document, as it is a certainty that the New States Constitution will find its way to an Article V event, should it occur. Not coincidentally, in the wake of the release of this book, Nelson Rockefeller (then Vice-President) started pushing openly for a Convention, in which this New States Constitution could modernize the Page 36 of 155

antiquated handiwork of Madison, et al. This verbiage even showed up in the 1974 book, giving push to the proposed bicentennial event of Rockefeller.

If I were analyzing Burns for rhetorical devices, the first of these adjectives (anachronistic) means misplaced in proper or time-sensitive sequence in a word, outdated. He was pointing derision at the document itself. The second, (the inflexible nature of its design) was deliberate. The Constitutions Framers understood exactly that such things as separation of powers, checks and balances, and etc. were never suited for flexibility. They also understood that political winds, and flavors of the week, would destroy any government that would endlessly bend with these winds. It was established rock solid, and inflexible in both structure and in its protections for the people, with due thought and consideration (much to the chagrin of would-be tyrants). As for irresponsible, that adjective could, properly rephrased with its containing sentence, actually represent the politicians involved. Yet by saying the system of government is irresponsible, just reeks of prejudice against the Constitution itself. Indeed, such word is indicative of spite toward both the Constitution and the men who framed it. Then finally, in 1985, the book Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System (Westview Press, ISBN: 0813371147) detailed exactly where funding was coming from to support radical reforms to our Constitution.

This CCS document also spoke the facts about a modern conventions potential, as well as its declared agenda, to wit:

and ...

Page 37 of 155

With such documented evidence present about the aims, objectives, and eventual outcome of a modernday convention, its conservative proponents would do well to take a deep breath, do a bit more research, and ponder the realities. In American politics today, with so many well-entrenched special interests pushing hard to legalize those things they are now achieving by corrupt practice, the only means available to them to achieve their radical agenda is an Article V event. If the goal is removing constitutional limits on government, such as only a convention can achieve, by what stretch of fantasy are we to perceive that a convention of states will do anything less than authorize still greater levels of government-sponsored theft from taxpayers, further erosion of protected liberties, and etc.? This brief snapshot of the generational history for this convention was provided not so much to address what is being said by the Goldwater Institutes fact sheet, but to show those new to the Convention notion that the notion itself is nothing new at all. You have been sucked into a now-generation-long battle to reduce the American Constitution to the history books, and to supplant it with a totally new, global-friendly system of governance. The replacement Constitution guts individual liberties, and was funded and created by the very people that Tea Party Patriots rail against for their sins. Do not allow yourself to be used as a pawn in this battle.

CONCLUSION The document proffered as a Fact Sheet supporting a modern-day convention would be more appropriately entitled Fantasy Land where conclusive, jurisprudential evidence to establish even one fact or facts about the ability of a convention to be limited in any manner whatsoever is wholly missing from the writing. The collection of misleading, uninspiring, and even reverse-logic employed in this document is, at best, political-science fiction. As a person who has watched, and participated in the debate over a proposed convention since approximately 1981, I have seen a continuing saga of decade-spaced attempts to open a convention. To date, all have been in vain. As conservative group after group has discovered the possibility for a grand, silver-bullet to fix Washington by way of our states, the dismal failures of each generation of convention proponents has made laughing-stocks of them all. As each generation of gullible politicians drops in their respective hopper new resolutions for Article V events, corresponding public outcries have dashed their potential careers to pieces. So begins a new effort, this time complete with mock rules said to be in place to keep the convention from becoming a runaway. And once again, the political careers of the promoters of an Article V convention will hang in the balance as the generationally-hardened opponents of a convention go to work against them. As usually happens, eventually the agenda of globalists are uncovered, and the hopes of Convention promoters turn to dust. The ability of some to say oops, I was wrong on this one often determines their fate, and strengthens them for the next round of battle. Saving face in the public eye is not easy, when ardent defenders of the Constitution make examples of those who are either deceived themselves, or make gallant efforts to deceive others. Such is the nature of this particular Goldwater Institute document. Those espousing its claims would do well to read the counterpoints of more prudent jurists and writers, than to merely succumb to the bandwagon of misguided Tea Partiers. Page 38 of 155

At one level, I am not so adverse to the notion of having a convention as may be perceived by this particular writing. Were I to be handed a guilded invitation, and if it were so that others I know and trust were also guaranteed slots in such an event, at least in that case there would be present a few wilderness voices for liberty. At another level, the theological side of me thinks that perhaps finally having a convention would be a good thing. The collapse of this idolatry-filled nation would be assured, as the thunder of arms resounded from the internal revolution that such an event would bring (Divine Judgement) on this nation, at last. However, and those things said, what bothers me more than the prospect of a convention is the prospect of one being foisted upon a gullible and deceived people. I object not to a TRULY INSPIRED Article V event, where everyone calling for the convention is doing so knowing completely that it cannot be limited, that any modeled rules for it would be subject to the conventions own whims and fancy of the day, and that every article, section and clause of the extant Constitution would be, including the Bill of Rights, up for debate, revision, enhancement or elimination. The extant separation of powers, the thoughts of a parliamentary democracy, the establishment of an American Monarchy, and every other notion for government would be fair game in a convention. This is the debate that should occur. Is such a convention wide open to everything desirable, or should other options be exhausted properly? Should we perhaps mandate obedience to the articles, sections and clauses it contains before relegating it to the status of a failed experiment? Can we strengthen state perjury laws, impose state law upon United States Senators, compel a published actual budget from the Congress, or arrest those in violation of their public fiduciary oath? If not, then go for it. Introduce resolutions calling for an open, wide open, Article V convention. Propose whatever language you can that your skills permit, to establish more firm guidelines on liberty. Or, if the public will confirm it, eliminate all rights and liberties, and establish a banana republic, parliamentary democracy, or install a king or queen for that matter. It will not matter, except by a question of degree. Liberty will be lost, and with it, the historical realities that most of our schools cannot teach in the current environment of political correctness, regardless of the Constitution, and what it provides. But let there be no convention called for, or opened, by people who have been deceived into thinking they are getting a balanced budget amendment, when what they are actually getting is a full blown constitutional convention, with a new Constitution having already been written. Let not charlatans parading fantasy around, passing it off as fact, sway the opinion of our servant, if not somewhat gullible, state legislators. Let them know the truth. And as noted in Federalist #43, there is yet another option simply declare the Constitution void for violations, and revert our states back to fully independent status. Let them provide for their own defense, and eliminate every federal entity we all (as conservatives) loathe. Department of Education gone. Department of Homeland Security Gone. National Security Agency gone. If, however, with knowledge full knowledge that this potential convention is an open event, then let them make their decision to call for such an event be based on that knowledge, and all it entails. Start over completely. Let the experiences we have had this past century weigh into a voluminous Bill of Rights even adding more federal restrictions on our states. No state shall pass any law violating the right of conscience ... requiring an occupational license ... etc. The Congress shall not delegate any enumerated power to any other entity. The Congress shall not charter any corporation whatsoever ... etc. But the wide-open nature of any Article V event that is the reality, that is the one and only fact of interest, in this debate. And shame on anyone who employs deception to open such an event on an unsuspecting populace. (Moreover, shame on the people themselves for allowing themselves to be deceived!) What I object to is all this DECEPTION. Trying to claim as fact the notion of a convention being limited is the epitome of prevarication. And shame on anyone, including the Goldwater Institute, for saying otherwise. Their fact sheet has proven nothing, other than the level of deception employed by this round of convention promoters. It hasnt even identified a single constitutional defect something absolutely required before calling for an event to fix something that is easily arguable to be unbroken. Page 39 of 155


[Ed Note: This article originally appeared at as a reply to a particular author who had broached the subject of opening a modern day constitutional convention. The logic of Dr. Vieira is impeccably delivered. As a recent, contemporary writing on the subject, we felt it mete to include herein. Used with permission of Dr. Vieira, and in its entirety.] By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. September 24, 2013 In his recent column, "I Want a Real Liberty Movement", Timothy Baldwin has presented a very challenging argument in favor of a new constitutional convention. I believe, however, that his basic contentions do not stand up well to critical analysis. I. Mr. Baldwin tells his readers that he agree[s] with [Mark] Levin that the only way to change the jurisprudence of our constitutional law (specifically put, to redefine what the Courts have defined regarding Congress' power under the commerce and tax power) is for the people to change it through amendment. To be clear, there is no other way to do this and fix the constitutional structure that encourages abuse of federal power. Until certain federal and state powers are redefined in the Constitution by the States through Article V, Congress will continue to act accordingly (meaning, to regulate in all cases whatsoever), regardless of what pet remedies you think are the answer, like recalling public officials, voting, state nullification, the militia, informed juries, coordination, impeachment, civil disobedience, etc. None of these remedies correct the jurisprudence created by the Judiciary. None fix the inherent diffusive congressional power structure developed over time, which makes Congress essentially accountable to no one. Unfortunately, this argument accepts as valid a very bad principle as the reason for the action Mr. Baldwin proposes. The notion that "the jurisprudence created by the Judiciary"which Mr. Baldwin doubtlessly recognizes as a false jurisprudence, or he would not be advocating amendments of the Constitution in order to set it asidecan be corrected only by various constitutional amendments is even more obviously false and pernicious than the false jurisprudence it intends to nullify through amendments. At base, the argument is self-contradictory. If the Constitution has to be amended, then the supposedly "false" jurisprudence is actually a "true" jurisprudence, because if it were false it would be unconstitutional, by definition, and could not require for its correction an amendment of the Constitution to which it has no legitimate relationship. On the other hand, if this jurisprudence is actually a false jurisprudence, then it has nothing to do with the Constitution ab initio, except to violate it; and therefore some remedy other than amendment of the Constitution would be called for. (As I have already examined what other remedies are available, in my book How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, I shall direct the reader there for the details.) The problem stems from the truly anti-constitutionalI should add "absurd" or even "idiotic"notion that "the Constitution is what the judges say it is". The Constitution is neither "correct" nor "incorrect"; it is simply what it is, to be deduced by right reason from what it says. A judicial opinion about the Constitution, however, can be correct or incorrect. Even the Supreme Court has admitted as much in the most palpable manner possible, by reversing itself on constitutional questions numerous times. See, e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827-830 (1991) (collecting cases). In these situations, we are entitled to ask, was the Court incorrect in the first instance, and correct in the second; or correct in the first instance, and incorrect in the second; or incorrect in both instances? How can one know, except by adherence to the rule: "the Supreme Court does not determine what the Constitution means; rather, the Constitution determines whether an opinion of the Page 40 of 155

Supreme Court is correct or incorrect"? Must the Constitution be amended every time some majority of Justicesor, put more bluntly, "the fifth fool" on the Courtrenders some dopey or dishonest opinion? If so, then judicial usurpation and tyranny have actually succeeded, and the Constitution has been overthrown. The record of the Supreme Court's decisionsthe so-called United States Reports, if not the greatest then surely the longest work of fiction in the history of the worldis actually "the constitution"; and the document known as the Constitution is nothing more than a blank slate on which the Justices write whatever comes into their heads. That, apparently, is what the advocates of a new constitutional convention accept as the predicament in which this country now finds itself. If that is the best these people can do, one must despair of any good coming out of a process of constitutional amendment which they mediate or in any way significantly influence. II. But leave aside the problem of what American constitutionalism really means in terms of the relationship of principal and agent between We the People and their ostensible "representatives", and focus solely on the practicalities of the process of amendment. If a new constitutional convention were convened under Article V, what amendments might it propose? The proponents of a convention say that its agenda can be controlled by law, so that it will not become a "runaway" convention. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But if it did turn out to be a "runaway" convention, proposed all sorts of amendments wholly inconsistent with any rational conception of "liberty" (that is, acted like the legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California, to name a few contemporary "peoples republics" in what passes for "the land of the free"), and some or all of these amendments were eventually ratified, would the courts as they are now constituted declare those amendments invalid, because of the "runaway" nature of the convention? Very unlikely. How long have people tried to bring to the Supreme Court the question of the invalidity of the supposed ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, without any result, notwithstanding the significant body of evidence in support of that conclusion? If, on the other hand, the convention were not a "runaway" convention, the amendments it proposed might nonetheless be badly drafted, and therefore could not be supported, even by "the liberty movement" itself. (And some of the proposed amendments I have seen I for one would never support.) So the entire effort could turn out to be largely a waste of time and effort. If the convention were not a "runaway" convention, and the proposed amendments were good, they would still have to be ratified by three fourths of the States. How long that would take is anyone's guess. If one or more of those amendments were ratified, they would then have to be implemented. At that point in time, the compositions of Congress and of the courts would be similar to what they are nowin personality types, if not actually the very same personsbecause (according to Mr. Baldwin) "recalling public officials, voting, * * * [and] impeachment" are nothing more than "pet remedies", and therefore whatever reforms those actions could effect would not have been achieved by the members of "the liberty movement" who spent their time working on behalf of constitutional amendments instead. A Congress composed of individuals who score near the top of "the prostitution to special interests index" will not accept the diminution of the unconstitutional power which (as Mr. Baldwin points out) "makes Congress essentially accountable to no one". Such a Congress will never change its ways on its own initiative. Instead, it will merely pass "stealth legislation", artfully drafted to attempt to sneak around the limits the new constitutional amendments interpose. Whether it succeeds in this deception, and whether old statutes which the new amendments arguably negate will be overturned, will depend entirely upon the courtsbecause that, of course, is the way of "the jurisprudence of our constitutional law" which Mr. Baldwin accepts as so controlling that it can be changed, or even challenged, only by amendment of the Constitution. Being the appointees of a rogue Presidents and Senators , the judges will oppose these amendments in principle, and in practice will do everything possible to avoid deciding cases that apply them, or to construe them in some grossly deformed manner. The judicial dishonesty that created the problem supposedly necessitating the new amendments will pale into insignificance in comparison with the judicial dishonesty that will be employed to render those amendments as innocuous, if not as meaningless, as possible. So the all-important question remains to be answered by the people in "the liberty movement" who are proposing a constitutional convention: "Exactly how Page 41 of 155

are the new amendments to be enforcedin a timely and effective manner, if at allif the first level of totally corrupt enforcers in Congress and the courts simply refuses to enforce them as they should be enforced? In any event, even with a completely honest Judiciary at every level of the federal system, it will take Heaven alone knows how long to have each of the amendments "construed" and "applied" by the courts. Years will be consumed as various "cases" and "controversies" wend their ways from United States District Courts to United States Courts of Appeals, or from State trial courts to State intermediate courts to State supreme courtsthen many months more while petitions for writs of certiorari go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepts vanishingly few such petitions, however. And doubtlessly it will be reluctant to accept one on the interpretation and application of a brand-new amendment until the crucial controlling issues have been identified, fought over, and clarified in several lower-court decisions. Even then, the "cases" and "controversies" finally heard will be limited to their specific facts. So only bits and pieces of the total effect of each amendment will be dealt with in each "case" or "controversy". To determine the full meaning of an amendment could thus take decades, or even longer. (How many provisions of the Constitution as it now stands are still not completely "construed" in the Supreme Court's opinions?) And for all anyone knows, some or perhaps many of these "cases" and "controversies" will be argued by incompetent counsel, or the opinions in them written by incompetent Justices or their incompetent law clerks, making a first-class rat's nest out the results. So I fail to comprehend how a new constitutional convention can be viewed by anyone as a plausibly workable remedy for the problems it is supposedly designed to address. To me, it looks much more like a "crap shoot"with the dice heavily loaded against the shooter, at that. III. Now compare, in a few particulars, a new constitutional convention to revitalization of the Militia. I suppose I should do this in any eventbut I am especially encouraged to take on the task by Mr. Baldwin's disparaging inclusion of "the militia" in his catalogue of "pet remedies" that he apparently believes are so inferior to a convention that all efforts in their direction people in "the liberty movement" should turn instead to a convention. (Actually, I cannot become too exercised about this, becauseeven though Mr. Baldwin does not seem to recognize the logical necessity of itamendment of the Constitution is just as much someone's "pet remed[y]" as any of the other "remedies" on his list. But, on the other hand, Mr. Baldwin has provided me with "a teaching moment" which I should hate to waste.) A. If "the militia"by which I presume Mr. Baldwin means "the Militia of the several States" which the Constitution incorporates into the federal systemare anyone's "pet remedies", they are the Founding Fathers' "pet remedies"; for the Founders included the Militia in the Constitution as "being necessary to the security of a free State", a characterization which they did not append to the process of amendment in Article V (or anything else). Importantly, the verb "being" is in the present tense, because the Militia are always "necessary". An amendment of the Constitution, while surely useful, is by its very nature an extraordinary event which the Constitution presumes may occur in the future, but does not expect to occur every day (although, if Mr. Baldwin is right to imply that amending the Constitution is the only way to correct "the [faulty] jurisprudence created by the Judiciary", then America could conceivably need a continuous process of amendments for every constitutional blunder of the Supreme Court in each of its Terms, as well as for all of the unconstitutional decisions the lower courts hand down every year that are never reviewed by the Supreme Court). Unlike a constitutional convention, as permanent constitutional institutions the Militia are fully capable of exercising their authority every day of every year. And their authority is as extensive as the laws of both the Union and the Stateswhere the term "laws" includes the Constitution itself. True enough, the Militia cannot amend the Constitution. But they can execute (that is, enforce) the Constitution according to its true (or, as some people like to say, its "original") intent, and in doing so largely obviate what Mr. Baldwin rightly deprecates as "the [false] jurisprudence of our constitutional law". For "[t]he [false] jurisprudence of our constitutional law" is of little moment if it cannot be enforced, because the Militia refuse to enforce it, as the Constitution would require them to refuse. B. Application to Congress for a constitutional convention requires two thirds of the States. Adoption of a proposed amendment cannot be effected by less than three fourths of the States, let alone by a single State. Ratification of a proposed amendment in one State does nothing to help that State or any other State right away. Page 42 of 155

Ratification in one State does not allow that State to operate under the proposed amendment. Ratification in one State does not show what the effect of adoption of the amendment would be even in that State, let alone in other States or throughout the country. And, although ratification in one State may encourage other States to ratify in their turn, it also may not, as the history of the proposed but never ratified Equal Rights Amendment proves. Conversely, revitalization of the Militia can be accomplished in one State at a time, simply by the passage of a statute. One State does not need the concurrence of any other State, or of the General Government, to revitalize her Militia, because the Militia are "the Militia of the several States" taken as individual polities, not as a collective. Revitalization of the Militia in one State helps that State immediately. And revitalization of the Militia in one State shows other States exactly what can in fact be done, because it is being done, and therefore encourages them in the most instructive manner possible to revitalize their Militia, too. C. The ultimate deficit this country faces is one of time. T-I-M-E. Time. There is too little time to engage in a process as lengthy, complex, and problematical as will involve and grow out of a constitutional convention and its aftermath. A major economic collapse is now confronting the United States, and even the entire world. It will not take ten or twenty years to come to its poisonous fruition. Anyone familiar with the alternative financial mediaand even much of the "mainstream" media, as wellknows that the Federal Reserve System and the United States Treasury are in deep trouble. Indeed, "central banking", "fiat currencies", "monetization" of public debt, and Ponzi schemes bottomed on "fractional reserves" (or in most instances fictional "reserves") are disintegrating across the globe. Most crucially, the status of the Federal Reserve System as the de facto "world central bank" and of the Federal Reserve Note as the de facto "world reserve currency" is threatened. A collapse of the monetary and banking systems will result in depression, hyperinflation, or depression coupled with hyperinflation. No State is adequately prepared at present to deal with the economic chaos, social dislocations, civil unrest, and civil disobedience which will then ensure. And no possible amendments of the Constitution can prevent this collapse from occurring, even if they were ratified tomorrow, because the economic die has already been cast, and irretrievably so. The present situation is very much like a scene which might have taken place on the doomed liner Titanic: The ship has struck the iceberg; it is going down fast by the head. In the Grand Salon, Mr. Andrews, the ship's designer, meets with a group of marine engineers and skilled workmen. They pour over blueprints, plans, specifications, engineering tables of one kind and another, and lists of available materials and tools. Then they announce to Captain Smith that, in principle, they can save the ship, by shoring up some old bulkheads, building some new ones, and concentrating the pumps in a certain area. Captain Smith asks them how long it will take. About twenty hours, Andrews replies. Unfortunately, at that moment Titanic has only an hour left to live. The movement for a constitutional convention presents an exact parallel. Arguably, if everything went according to plan (which raises an host of other questions) a set of good amendments could, in principle, go far towards saving this country. But it would take five, ten, or twenty years to see significant results. And America can count on far less time than that before the economic roof falls in on her head. Actually, the Titanic scenario is far more realistic, because it involves solely a problem of engineering, a solution for which can be worked out mathematically, and an accurate prediction of its effects made. Moreover, everyone on Titanic would have wanted the problem to be solved as quickly as possible, because if the work could have been done Titanic would not have sunk. Such a unanimity of purpose among Americans, especially those high up in the political class, does not exist with respect to the proposal, ratification, or implementation of new amendments truly favorable to "liberty". And, in any event, no one can predict the actual effects those amendments may have when implemented. But it is certain that they can have no effect whatsoever on the present economic situation and its immediate consequences, certainly not in time to correct the underlying problem or significantly to mitigate its most disastrous effects. America needs a solution to this problemeven a partial and imperfect solutionthat can be put into operation right nowor as I like to say, immediately if not sooner. The Militia are "necessary to the security of a free State" in every sense, including "economic security". However, they are moribund. But they can be revitalized in any State, and in every State, simply by the enactment of a single State statute in each jurisdiction. Revitalization of the Militia does not constitute or depend upon "nullification", "interposition", or "civil Page 43 of 155

disobedience"; neither does it require or entail violence. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply ignorant of the subject-matter. For example, adoption by a State of an alternative currency in anticipation of the collapse of the Federal Reserve System does not turn on establishing the unconstitutionality of the banking-cartel in the courts, or ratifying a new constitutional amendment under the aegis of which the cartel would have to be disestablished. For, whether that System is constitutional or unconstitutional in whole or in part now, or could be outlawed by some new amendment later on, each State at this very moment retains reserved powers under the Constitution to maintain her own Militia, to make gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, and to administer her system of alternative currency through her Militia, without any consideration of the Federal Reserve. Similarly, any State can insulate herself from the national para-military police state being set up under the Department of Homeland Security by revitalizing her Militia and incorporating all State and Local "law-enforcement" and "emergency-management" agencies within her Militiawhereupon no official of the DHS can give any commands to those agencies, because no official of the DHS can be an "officer" in the Militia, inasmuch as the Constitution explicitly reserves to each State the authority to appoint all of the "officers" in her own Militia (other than the President of the United States). These actions can be taken right now, without the need to ratify any new constitutional amendment, simply by the passage of a single statute in each State (if the matter is handled competently), and even within what Mr. Baldwin describes as "the jurisprudence of our constitutional law". So, until these relatively simple actions have been taken in at least one State, and their merits scientifically falsified by the experiment's failure to produce the desired results, why would any prudent person want to eschew them in favor of a highly problematic program aimed at a new constitutional convention? Correctly revitalized, the Militia will prepare the people in each State for dealing with all sorts of emergencies, including economic collapse, monetary chaos, civil disorder, massive food shortages, epidemics, natural disasters, and so on. True enough, it may be that revitalization will help each State in her own particular way, and perhaps at first only a single State. But "it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness". And it may be true that revitalization in one State will amount to just the first step in what ends up as a long and difficult political and legal march through the rest of the States. But (as the Chinese proverb has it) "a journey of a thousand li begins with a single step". After all, although Titanic sank, and hundreds died needlessly because not enough lifeboats were available, it was nevertheless a blessing that some lifeboats were at hand, and that some passengers were saved. Similarly, a "real liberty movement" (to use Mr. Baldwin's term) may not be able to revitalize all of the Militia in all of the States, or to revitalize any of them in any of the States to the greatest possible degree, in time to fend off all of the very worst effects of the coming economic collapse. But whatever is accomplished will have some salutary effect, somewhere, for some people. And something achieved on that score is better than nothingand certainly is a far more realistic and attainable goal than the pie-in-the-sky promises offered, without any assurances whatsoever, by the proponents of a new constitutional convention. Personally, I am sick and tiredas no doubt are the readers of this columnof watching "the liberty movement" commit suicide with the death of a thousand cuts at its own hand, day after day, year after year. But launching another "children's crusade", which even if successful in obtaining its objective at some unpredictable time in the future could not possibly deal with the great danger now confronting this country, is quixotic behavior at best. Yet the more I observe this situation, the more I sense that perhaps Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt was sapient in his two negative replies to Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, as depicted in the Twentieth Century Fox movie "The Desert Fox"the first, when Rommel (played by James Mason) suggests that von Rundstedt (played by Leo G. Carroll) should approach Hitler and try to convince him to change his insane strategy, and von Rundstedt begs off; the second, when Rommel later tries to bring von Rundstedt into the German resistance-movement's plan to depose Hitler, and von Rundstedt declines. As applied today in this country, the lesson "The Desert Fox" teaches is that it may be too late to save "the liberty movement", and that the wise man who has tried his best in the past to do so, but without a scintilla of success, is now entitled to stop beating his head against a brick wall, and instead to sit back and view the entire matter with serene detachment, as merely another sorry episode in the long chronicle of mankind's follies. Personally, I am not yet ready to embrace this Page 44 of 155

lugubrious conclusion. But the more I observe "the liberty movement" at work today, the more I wonder whether perhaps von Rundstedt might have been right, after all.
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment. He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms... He can be reached at his new address: 52 Stonegate Court Front Royal, VA 22630. E-Mail: Not available


By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. October 16, 2013 (Source: Timothy Baldwin's latest column, "The Fallacies of Anti-Article V Advocates", is (as usual with him) a well-presented statement of his position on the advisabilityperhaps he would say the urgency or even the necessityof calling "an amendment-proposing convention'". Yet I detect at least three problems with his argument: two of these relating to the main issue of the utility of such a convention, the third to whether such a convention is really the course of action the law and the times dictate. I. Article V of the Constitution provides that "[t]he Congress, * * * on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments". The language "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" sets out a constitution duty in Congress. It embraces a constitutional power as well. That brings into play Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, which delegates to Congress the power "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [that is, in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 17], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". The power to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments" is one of those "all other Powers". Therefore, pursuant to that power, Congress may enact whatever "Law[ ] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the * * * Power[ to call a Convention]". What might such a "Law[ ]" entail? First, it would not necessarily have to accede to every jot and tittle of whatever proposals appeared in "the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States". Article V does not require Congress, in the manner of a robot, mechanically to adopt "the Application of th[os]e Legislatures" word for word. An "Application" amounts to a request to Congress for it to exercise its power in the premises, not a dictation by the States of how that power must be exercised. This raises an host of both substantive and procedural questions.

Page 45 of 155

First, Congress could arguably influence the substance of such a "Convention". Presumably, an honest Congress would include in its ultimate "call[ing of] a Convention" the particular amendments the States had proposed, as part of the "Convention's" agenda. But nothing seems to preclude an honest Congress (and certainly a dishonest one) from offering its own proposed amendments for consideration at the "Convention"if, for example, the "necessary and proper" "Law[ ]" Congress enacted for "call[ing] a Convention" were passed by a two-thirds majority in each House, so that it could be said that the "Law[ ]" also satisfied the requirement of Article V that "[t]he Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments". This would not be a "run-away convention" according to the plain text of Article V; but it certainly might be according to the fears of many opponents of a new "Convention", especially given the rogue Congress that now sits in the Disgrace of Columbia to the vexation of this country. Second, Congress arguably could influenceI should think could controlthe procedures employed at the "Convention", with decided, if not decisive, effects upon the "Convention's" substantive outcome. And, self-evidently, some procedures must be specified. For example, Congress might determine how delegates to the "Convention" were to be selected, or perhaps could select them itself. Congress might determine when, where, and for how long the "Convention" would meet. It might specify what rules of order were to be used, including whether a simple majority of the delegates, or some super-majority, or voting by individual delegates or only by States were allowable. And so on. II. Who is to say that such a "Law[ ]" as hypothesized above would not be, at least in the collective mind of Congress, "necessary and proper"? Indeed, who is to say that some such "Law[ ]"embracing the composition, agenda, and rules of procedure of a "Convention"would not be "necessary and proper" in the mind of any rational individual? According to what I take to be Mr. Baldwin's view of "judicial supremacy", though, only the Supreme Court would enjoy the ultimate, final, and unreviewable authority to pass on the "necessity" and "propriety" of that "Law[ ]". Now, I do not share Mr. Baldwin's opinions as to the powers, the role, and especially the supremacy of the Supreme Court in America's constitutional system. In this country, only WE THE PEOPLE, not any (or all) of their fallible agents, enjoy such supremacy. There is, for example, no question that the more grotesque of what Mr. Baldwin charitably calls "judicial errors" can be corrected by impeachment of errant Justices pour encourager les autres. Impeachment would seem to be a far simpler exercise of Congressional power than amendment of the Constitution, especially inasmuch as an admitted "judicial error" (let alone a "judicial crime") is, by legal hypothesis, not part of the Constitution at all, and therefore does not need to (and logically cannot) be expunged by an amendment. Impeachment, of course, is not the only way, short of an amendment, to deal with "judicial errors" that derive from simple stupidity, let alone those better characterized as calculated usurpation and tyranny. I have dealt extensively with this problem in my book How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, and will not repeat all of that here. But let us take as a given, for purpose of argument, that Mr. Baldwin is correct, and that "judicial errors", no matter how corrupt, dishonest, or even criminal, can be corrected only by an amendment of the Constitution. What, then, if the scenario posited above actually occurs, the proponents of Mr. Baldwin's "amendment-proposing convention'" find themselves hoisted with their own ptard, some of them somehow manage to bring a "Case" or "Controversy" to the Supreme Court (perhaps in the Court's "original Jurisdiction" in the name of one or more of the States which originally submitted the "Application"), and the Supreme Court rules in favor of what Congress has done?! Then what? Obviously, Mr. Baldwin has, somewhat imprudently, left out of consideration the problem that, if the need for a new "Convention" arises out of the long list of "judicial errors" which derive from the (false) doctrine of "judicial supremacy", but that (false) doctrine is not corrected before the new "Convention" is held, then the "Convention" (as well as its aftermath) will remain at the mercy of the (false) doctrine it is meant to correct. Holy self-contradiction, Batman! That does not appear to be a plausible way of dealing with the problem, especially in light of the vast amount of time-consuming and costly political wheel-spinning which would have to be put into obtaining the "Convention" in the first place. Page 46 of 155

It would seem, therefore, that any proposal for a "Convention" must, first and foremost, describe in some detail exactly how the "Convention" will solve, or at least circumvent, the problem of "judicial supremacy". Absent such a solution, the call for a new "Convention" appears to be little more than "pie in the sky" without a crust to hold it all together. III. Finally, I feel the need to emphasize once again (and as far as I am concerned, for the last time in this context) that the constitutional remedy which I contend is actually "necessary" at this juncture in the course of human events, and which the Constitution itself tells us is "necessary" at all timesthat is, revitalization of "the Militia of the several States"does not posit, let alone require, (in Mr. Baldwin's words) "having to use force", in some "revolutionary" manner, in order to enforce the Constitution. The Constitution itself delegates to the Militia the authority and the responsibility "to execute the Laws of the Union" (and the laws of the several States within the States, especially to the extent that those laws might contravene "the Laws of the Union"). This authority and responsibility is thus to be exercised within the Constitution, perforce of the Constitution, and for the purpose of enforcing the Constitutionnot extra-constitutionally let alone unconstitutionally. And it is an authority and responsibility to be exercised by the Constitution's very principals, WE THE PEOPLE themselves, not simply by their incompetent and even disloyal "representatives" and other putative "agents". As I have written several books on this subject, I need do no more than remind readers of this column that printing has been invented, and that they should take advantage of this invention. In sum, it seems that the debate on this subject takes us back, once again, to the Grand Salon of Titanic on that fateful night. The great liner is sinkingabout that no possible doubt can be entertained. Mr. Andrews (the ship's designer), Captain Smith, and other well-meaning and well-informed individuals are gathered around a table, drafting plans for a new and better liner. As Mr. Andrews points out (perhaps correctly), if in the new ship the watertight bulkheads are raised well above "E deck", the calamity which has befallen Titanic will be obviated. That, however, will not save Titanic, let alone the hundreds who must perish with her. In the case of the great ship of state America, the lives, fortunes, and freedoms of millions, not just hundreds, are now at stake. And time is rapidly running out. Can we really afford to be drafting new designs for a future which may never come? Or should we instead focus on maximizing damage-control with the very tools the Constitution describes as "necessary", and which are available now if only we put them to use? On the theory that "it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness", I submit that it is more prudent to go about lighting the actual candle we have at hand than to concern ourselves with other merely theoretical candles which may very well turn out to contain neither wick nor wax. 2013 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

Page 47 of 155

The Effort to Dismantle Our Constitution

By Jackie Patru (revised and updated January, 2001) Under article V of the Constitution, our founding fathers established two methods for future generations to add amendments to the Constitution. Under method 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress can propose an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states ratify it... or not. Under method 2: Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention. Notice that ratification by states does not specify state legislatures ! Those who insist there's nothing to fear from a con-con maintain that even if it were to get out of control it would take three-fourths of the states to ratify it. They ask, "Would 38 states ratify a bad amendment?" At first glance, it seems unlikely... but three facts are never mentioned by con-con advocates, and these are crucially important points: 1) The convention could abolish or alter the rules of ratification as was done in 1787. 2) Article V authorizes Congress to decide on the mode of ratification: either by State Legislatures or by special State Ratifying Conventions. In 1933 the 21st Amendment lifting the prohibition on alcohol was ratified in special state conventions, thus circumventing the legislatures of the states. [That incident bares further research. It appears that the BATF was created as a result of the implementing legislation for Amendment 21. Maybe prohibition was instituted to create the crime of distilling, distributing, and consuming alcohol to justify the need for the "revenuers" and the ensuing crime bills. Maybe Title 27, the Code of Federal Regulations used by the IRS is part of all that, since the IRS is under Title 26 and there is no CFR for Title 26. Whatever the case, the proponents of the 21st Amendment, circumvented the States in favor of ratifying conventions to get the amendment ratified because they knew they wouldnt get ratification by the state legislatures.] 3) Advocates of a convention deceptively offer false assurances that a convention can be limited to a single subject. Some state legislators feel safe with their state's call for a con-con because they have added to it a "null and void" clause if the convention not be limited to the specific purpose of proposing an amendment to balance the budget. Article V authorizes the states only to apply for a convention. Once underway, the convention makes its own rules and could reject any or all restrictions on its activity and assert its supreme power by virtue of its direct authority from the Constitution. The Unbridled Power of the Delegates to a Con-Conhas been acknowledged several times by various State Supreme Courts; and a letter from former U.S. Chief Justice, Warren Burger confirms the danger. All 27 amendments to our Constitution originated in Congress and were then ratified by the states. The second method, by federal convention, has never been used because it places too much power in the hands of few. The first and only convention was held in 1787, during which our Constitution was framed. In 1787 the founders had convinced the people a Conference of States should be held for the purpose of "making some changes" in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to the Conference in Philadelphia were under strict instructions from their respective states and the Congress to meet for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. As we know, they did much more than that. They threw out the Articles of Confederation and drafted a new constitution. Page 48 of 155

The 55 men present at that conference locked the doors and even nailed the windows shut to the public and the press, and proceeded to draft an entirely new document which replaced the Articles of Confederation. Many believe that what our founders did was providential; however, it hardly seems wise to trust the special interests of today with powers that could be used "lawfully" to re-write or worse... replace our Constitution. At the Conference of States, the delegates created a Committee of the Whole, passed a resolution repealing the Articles of Confederation and continued on with what became known as the first and only Constitutional Convention. Can you imagine hearing, "The Constitution for the United States of America is hereby dissolved."? It happened that way in the 1787 Convention. . . it could happen again. Some Modern History In 1964 the Ford Foundation funded and orchestrated via the CSDI (Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions the drafting of a new constitution for America. This model constitution, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people, took ten years to write. The 40th draft was published in a book titled The Emerging Constitution, by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974). The project cost $2.5 million per year and produced the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America. In case you would be inclined to dismiss the relevance of the proposed new constitution, bear in mind that it is the product of a globalist minded, tax-exempt think-tank which took ten years, $25,000,000, and the collaboration of over one-hundred like-minded individuals. "It would be folly to believe this investment is intended to be merely an exercise in political theory. The frightening reality is, the planners are serious in their efforts to impose a new constitution upon the people of America as we enter the 21st Century." Col. Arch Roberts, Committee to Restore the Constitution (This link opens in a new browser window). After the completion of the proposed Newstates Constitution (1974), Nelson Rockefeller, then president of the U.S. Senate, engineered the introduction of HCR 28 calling for an unlimited Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) in 1976. Public opposition defeated this effort so the convention backers then went to the states promoting a "limited convention" for the ostensible purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment. Since 1976 the advocates of a Con-Con convinced 32 of the required 34 states to pass resolutions calling for a convention. The last state to apply was Missouri in 1983 and since then legislators in three states (Alabama, Florida and Louisiana), having realized the dangers of this action rescinded their call. The Nevada House of Representatives "purged" its resolution. However, since both chambers passed the resolution, it is questionable whether the one-chamber purge would be accepted as a rescission. Conversely, it has been argued that because the resolution was actually purged from the records as though it never passed it would negate the initial resolution which must pass in both chambers to be complete. We should not consider Nevadas purge, nor the rescissions of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana as a safety margin. According to Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a convention when 2/3rds of the states apply. That magic number is 34 states. Since three states have formally withdrawn (rescinded) their calls, that would seemingly leave us 5 states away from having a Con-Con. However, we have been informed that the advocates of the convention are waiting to capture not five, but only two more. It is said that if they get two more states to pass resolutions for a Con-Con, they plan to challenge the rescissions of the three states and throw them into the courts while going ahead with a convention. Considering the blatant corruption in courts at all levels today, it would be folly to rest on our laurels and feel safe that the courts would uphold those rescissions. For that reason, it should be considered at this time that if only two states pass resolutions calling for a con-con for the purpose of adding the balanced budget amendment, Congress would be required by the Constitution to open a Convention.

Page 49 of 155

Renewed Efforts After 1983, there were sporadic efforts by various states to pass the resolutions, each of which failed. In 1993 the push was on. Twelve States simultaneously introduced Con-Con resolutions. When that effort was unsuccessful, the forces promoting the Con-Con went back to the planning board. While the Tenth Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution was being introduced in many states in 1994, those desiring the ultimate elimination of the states spent the year laying the foundation for an historical repeat of 1787... a Constitutional Convention. The Conference of States was scheduled to take place in "historic" Philadelphia, October 22nd through 25th, 1995 coincidentally falling on the October 24th, Fifty-year Anniversary of the UN. So sure of success were the powers behind the effort , a Canadian newspaper in 1995 (according to Allen Watt) informed its readers that British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, would be out of the country in October, attending an "important convention" in Philadelphia. We discovered later that Margaret Thatchers secretary was an advisor to the COS. Although the COS was billed as a plan by Governors Michael Leavitt of Utah and Ben Nelson of Kansas, it became clear from a 1987 ACIR-CSG paper that in reality the Governors were merely delivery boys for the scheme led by the Rockefeller founded Council of State Governments. In addition to Leavitts Memorandum of 5-17-94: Subject: Conference of States, with its veiled intentions, our first piece of real evidence that the COS was, in fact, planning a Con-Con, appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune 5-25-94, of which unfortunately we did not have knowledge until February, 95 after twelve states had passed the resolution. According to the Tribune article, Leavitt had taken "... his plan for an informal states conference and a possible constitutional convention to the Western States Summit in Phoenix." Because of the outrage of many Summit attendees of his stated goal for a constitutional convention, Leavitt and company pulled in their horns and proceeded more carefully, denying plans of a con-con clear to the bitter-sweet end. Bitter for the planners, that is; sweet for those of us who worked round the clock for months, praying fervently for divine guidance in our efforts to preserve the Constitution. Our prayers were granted, just as Jesus promised, "ask and it shall be given you". In reality, the outcome was sweet for all Americans, most of whom had no clue the battle for their freedom was raging. Conservatives More Dangerous Than Liberals Interestingly, the organizations and leaders who purport to be conservative are the strongest proponents of a Constitutional Convention. Foremost among them are the *American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), *National Taxpayers' Union (NTU), *Republican National Committee (RNC) and most notably the *Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), chaired by Senator Nancy Kassebaum from Kansas, former Secretary of the Treasury, C. Douglas Dillon, and former Counsel to the President, Lloyd N. Cutler. Lloyd N. Cutler was Ross Perots advisor; Jimmy Carters White House Counsel; and reared his ugly head for a brief period during one of Clintons scandals. When Ross Perot appeared on the scene in 1992, he publicly called for a Constitutional Convention. We have transcripts of Perot's separate guest appearances with Barbara Walters, Phil Donahue and Larry King during which he stated emphatically that we need a Parliamentary Government (for which Paul Weyrich pines) and bragged that "his people" could get the remaining states needed for a Constitutional Convention call, "in their sleep". When Perot supporters members of United We Stand America discovered their hero was in actuality setting them up to take a fall, UWAS as an organization began to disintegrate. Jesuit-trained Paul Weyrich, founder of ALEC, and apparently the supreme commander at the Council for National Policy meetings, has been a major behind-the-scenes player. ALECs hired hand lawyer John Armor was the foremost lobbyist to state legislators in the decades-long effort to win the required number of state calls via the "balanced budget amendment" resolution. Weyrich stated in a Washington Post article he authored, titled A Conservatives Lament, that America needs Page 50 of 155

"... some type of shadow government... " because "Unlike European parliamentary democracies, we have no shadow cabinet, no group of experts who are groomed by their party for decades before they take high office...". We've come to realize that, even though the liberals are blamed for the downfall of America, the phony conservative leaders have held the door open for them to do so. We urgently appeal to true conservative state legislators and Americans in all political parties to open their eyes to the fact that the Democrat and Republican parties are a single two-headed monster. What Would America Look Like Under The Constitution for the Newstates of America? As outlined in the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America, the fifty united sovereign States will be segmented into ten regions. As we know, that step has already been completed by Nixons executive order, although it could simply be undone by state legislative action. States would be eliminated as will elected representation by and for the people, replaced by over-seers in the 10 regions with appointed bureaucrats to keep their subjects in line. This plan, promulgated by the International elite, would more efficiently and effectively control the 280 million people in America under an intended World Government, the seat of which would be the United Nations. The Bill of Rights would be replaced by "privileges" given to us by the world government and taken away at its whim. For example... Article 1-A Sec.1 - "Freedom of expression shall not be abridged except in declared emergency". A perpetual state of emergency could be declared which would prevent anyone from writing the material you are now reading. In fact, we could face imprisonment for the mere reading of this type information. Article 1A Sec.8 - "The practice of religion shall be privileged". Article 1B Sec. 8 - "Bearing of arms shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law." Article VIII states that the judge decides if there is to be a jury. It is very similar to the "constitutions" under which people in Russia and other Communist countries live. Of course, we are all to believe that Communism is dead and the UN is "democratizing" all the nations of the world. Here are a few other items: Farms Rexford Tugwell, the lead author of the Newstates Constitution said that private ownership of farms had not proved good for society. Depression Senator Kassebaums CCS says they want to wait until the U.S. is in a 1929 type depression to call a convention, because only then would the public accept the radical changes they want. Schools Article 1-A Sec. 11 says that free education would only be for those who pass appropriate tests. In conclusion... for those who believe our Constitution is already dead, and for those of you who claim the Constitution was a scam perpetrated by the Brotherhood the very fact that the International Elite have been trying for decades to open it up for their proposed changes, should be a clue that we have something they want. How about the Bill of Rights? The Second Article of Amendment? The Ninth and Tenth Articles of Amendment? Article V, which cannot be touched, and which declares that "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Did you know that ours is the only Constitution in the world which refers to the Citizens as the People? Other nations Constitutions refer to the people as "subjects". We have papers that lay out the NAFTA Implementation Schedule, which shows that by 2005 the U.S. and Canada are to be merged. Allen Watt, a Canadian and frequent guest on the Sweet Liberty broadcast recently told us about a Canadian TV program he saw. A group of professors discussing a recent summit they had attended, each and all came to the conclusion that it could never happen unless they could somehow repeal our 2nd Amendment. Page 51 of 155

James M. Burns, on page 160 of Reforming American Government stated: "Let us face reality. The framers have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to turn the founders upside down to put together what they put asunder we must directly confront the Constitutional structure they erected..."" In 1787, before the Constitution was ratified and while a few state officials were still uneasy about certain parts of it, there began a movement to reopen the convention. JAMES MADISON, the prime motivator of the first convention, was horrified by the mere suggestion of reconvening. In a letter to George Turberville, he said: "Under these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. 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". So should we all tremble for the result of a second. May our Heavenly Father / Creator Continue to Guide and Bless Our Work (remember... we must ASK)

Page 52 of 155

Prepared by the National Veterans Committee on Constitutional Affairs (NVCCA)

On the Need to Pass State Resolutions To Rescind Previous Applications to Congress for a Federal Constitutional Convention

The following states have passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional convention ostensibly to balance the federal budget. (These resolutions passed during the mid 1980's, and should be the first targets for the con con removal resolution below. The model following would repeal and any all open calls for a convention, regardless of the subject matter.


2008 by the NVCCA All Rights Reserved. This booklet may NOT be sold, but is distributed free of charge to State Legislators and activists working to prevent a 21st Century Constitution Convention in America.

Page 53 of 155


Author: The Late Edward Calliteau Applicability: (State) In states were the legislatures have applied to Congress to open a Constitutional Convention, this resolution can be offered to repeal those open calls.

To Rescind Previous Applications for a Constitutional Convention To rescind any and all previous applications by the Legislature of the State of ______ to the Congress of the United States of America for the purpose of calling a convention for any purpose, limited or general, to make specific amendment of general revision of the Constitution of the United States of America. WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of ______, acting with the best intentions, has previously made application to the Congress of the United States of America for the calling of a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America; and WHEREAS, the best legal minds in the nation today are in general agreement that a convention, notwithstanding whatever limitation might be placed upon it by the call of said convention, would have within the scope of its authority the complete redrafting of the Constitution of the United States of America, thereby creating a great danger to the well-established rights of our people and to the constitutional principles under which we are presently governed; and WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America, while it has been amended many times in the history of the nation and may yet be amended many times, has been extensively interpreted and had proven to be a sound document which protects the freedom of all Americans; and WHEREAS there is no need for a new constitution, the adoption of which would create legal chaos in America and only begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its interpretation by the courts; and WHEREAS, such changes as may be needed in the present Constitution of the United States may be proposed and enacted by the well-established method of amendment contained therein. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Legislature of the State of ______ does hereby rescind any and all previous applications to the Congress of the United States made by the Legislature of the State of ______ pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States for the calling of a constitutional convention for any purpose, limited or general. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America, to the members of the _______ delegation to the Congress of the United States, and to the presiding officers of each house of the legislatures of the several states. ON THE SUPPOSED NEED TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION Across America, people see the federal government as a different colored horse from the one created by fifty five men during the summer of 1787. Some particularly goofy ideas have come out recently that purport to be "solutions" to our national woes, but serious students of history and political science generally agree that many of the proposed solutions would be worse than the problem. Some may argue our that the primary task of conventioneers would be to propose ideas in a convention to downsize the federal government. On the contrary however, it is important to at least keep in mind proposals currently before the public that would actually increase the size and scope of the federal Page 54 of 155

government, while curtailing the civil liberties now enjoyed by Americans. Many proposals would, if allowed to come into legal existence, both increase the powers of the federal government, and legalize that which is now forbidden by the chains of the Constitution. At best, they would continue the trend of tampering with the balance of power, or give the feds authority even in our bedrooms. We want to halt the march toward tyranny, or in the words of the creative accountants in our taxation offices, at least slow the rate of its growth. Before we review three specific recently suggested constitutional changes, let's review the process of amending the constitution. This is key to understanding one angle of the `crisis of federalism,' as pundits are proposing institutional change as a method of `restoring the federalism balance.' Such changes are not necessary. This will heighten your awareness of the potential problem. The Founding Fathers made provisions within the Constitution to enable amendments. They recognized that changing needs could necessitate governmental change, and that a Constitution so inflexible and rigid that could not adapt, would eventually create yet another revolution sometime in the future. Amendments can be proposed in two ways: the congressional amendment and a Constitutional convention. Here is Article V of the Constitution for the United States of America, in its entirety: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate. The original Constitutional convention gave us a framework for government without a Bill of Rights. On the insistence of the states, the first ten amendments were drafted and submitted for ratification. Those ten amendments, history has shown, were a very good idea. Since the Bill of Rights, seventeen new amendments have been added. For a nation to survive over 200 years, and to only require that few number of changes, it seems the Constitution, as originally written, has served America well. In all instances, Congress proposed the needed changes, under Article V, and passed them to the states for their approval. A second Constitutional convention (Con-con) has never occurred. These amendments did various things, including correcting some discriminatory policies of the states (14th, 15th, 18th, 24th & 26th Amendments), realigning the dates Congress is in session (20th) and other minor mechanical changes. One amendment (the 18th) proved so unenforceable (alcohol prohibition) that it was repealed (by the 21st). In fact, that one amendment proves conclusively it requires a constitutional amendment for the federal government to come into the states to regulate any specific item not regulable under the terms of the Constitution. (How then can Congress mandate anything else within the states absent a specific amendment for each proposed regulation?) The amendment process is simple. A member of Congress pens an idea into a proposed amendment. The proposal is voted on by the Congress. A proposal that passes by the required margin of 2/3 of the members of Congress is then submitted to the states for agreement (ratification). That process has been repeated for every change proposed since 1789. Constitutional amendments proposed by Congress happen slowly. Once the states have the amendment in their legislatures for consideration, thorough debate occurs on the suggestion. That way, each change gets considered on its own merits. If public support and common sense favors the change, then it happens. The Page 55 of 155

evidence supporting the proposed change must be overwhelming. Two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the states must approve. In other words, the idea better be a sound one if it has any chance for success. There are three significant constitutional amendment proposals floating about today. All three have their proponents and detractors, and all three seem to cut across the traditional `lines in the sand.' Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) The first significant proposal is a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). The concept is one that is hard to argue with at first glance. Both `liberals' and `conservatives' know Congress is fouling our nation with debt, and some significant problems are resulting. Proponents of a BBA neglect, however, the existing formula for raising revenue and extinguishing year-end deficits. Furthermore, since the 1970's, numerous proposed `Amendments' have been brought forward, and upon review, they all allow Congress `loopholes' to continue business-as-usual deficits. None address the Federal Reserve specifically, which is a requirement if there is ever to be a balanced budget. The BBAs which have been proposed in the past several years don't appear to have been written by a person whose true motive was a balanced federal budget. That explains why few people are taking any amendment seriously, and what is behind the "foot-dragging." In looking at the proposed amendments, it is the consensus of opinions of economists, lawyers, Congressmen, and other "experts" that the BBAs offered to date won't end deficit spending. While there have been too many amendments proposed to get into the specifics of each in this limited space, most of them have several things in common. They fail to define key words, Allow deficits, Exclude borrowing and other contributing factors, Are based on predictions, Upset the balance of power, and Provisions of them supersede existing powers of Congress.

LACK OF DEFINITIONS For some bizarre reason, the proposed amendments usually fail to define key words. Knowing the semantic tactics of our lawyers on the Potomac, I am immediately suspicious of any amendment lacking ironclad wording. Congress should not be given the ability to make up the rules as they go. As an example, words like "receipt" and "outlay" can have their meanings change within the context of the amendment by a future act of Congress removing an item from the "official" budget and declaring it an "off-budget" item. The proposed amendments seen to date have such language in them, and dont plug the holes. THEY ALLOW DEFICIT SPENDING The proposed BBAs usually contain provisions giving Congress the ability to ignore the amendment. Would the bill of rights been ratified had a provision enabled Congress to suspend them? How easy would it be to get Congress to vote for big spending bills (circumventing a BBA) if such a loop-hole were created? EXCLUSION OF BORROWING Deficit spending is caused by borrowing. There will never be a balanced federal budget as long as the Federal Reserve exists, and borrowing continues to finance last year's programs and cost overruns. The BBAs proposed to date exempt borrowed funds from being counted as a receipt; hence the maintenance of the status quo is inevitable. Page 56 of 155

EXCLUSION OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Nothing in the proposed BBAs address the Federal Reserve. The Fed alone is the cause of inflation. Inflation contributes to budgetary problems. Deficits necessitate borrowing, which in turn results in accumulating debt, compounded by interest. Interest drains available revenue from circulation necessitating additional borrowing to make up for the shortfall. It is a devastating cycle that gets worse each year. All contributing factors--the Federal Reserve System, borrowing from it, interest payments to it, the practice of `monetizing' foreign debts through international bodies, the oppressive levels of inland excise taxes--all must be addressed by any budget balancing proposal. If not, a BBA will be impotent. ("Monetizing a debt" is the process of using the `commercial paper' of the creditor as the "reserve requirement" to justify the emission of paper "money." That exact process is the excuse for the Federal Reserve to cause paper to be printed for U.S. government obligations. Compounding our own budgetary problems is the scenario of the Fed "collateralizing" foreign debts with U.S. obligations, and then "monetizing" the foreign debt in the United States. For all intents and purposes, the budgets of foreign governments are being placed squarely on the back of the United States taxpayer. This is what the "professionals" are doing while you are allowing them to "handle" our monetary "needs." Any questions? If so, direct them to your Congressman.) PREDICATED ON PREDICTIONS Under the proposed BBAs, Congress is given the power to predict the future. A budget that is "balanced" on paper, based on projected `receipts' and `outlays' (whatever they are), is constitutional as far as the amendment is concerned. If revenue fails to be generated as predicted, it would not effect the constitutionality of the resultant deficit. If spending is added at a later time in response to an "emergency" (whatever that is), the budget would need not be modified. Borrowing would therefore continue to be the solution to the borrowing problem, and `supplemental appropriations bills' will continue to be the preferred method of `sneaking' in pork. This same practice occurs in many states. Necessary items are left out to fund the pork up front, then necessities are tacked on as supplemental appropriations. Smoke and mirrors, prestidigitation, call it what you want. It is criminal politics in action. UPSET THE BALANCE OF POWER The "escape clauses" (which allow deficits, interest and indiscriminate borrowing) are in contrast to the clear wording of the existing Constitution. The very language of the BBAs is confusing (according to State Senator Howard Dennis of Maryland, "an algebra formula"). The Constitution's original wording is concise. Adding a BBA to the Constitution would therefore allow the current dishonest and unaccountable practices of the Congress to continue unchecked. A return to the principles and original intent of the Constitution would end deficits. The proposed BBAs would, in fact, legalize that which is now forbidden by the Constitution, and shift the balance of power toward the federal government. To display the proper balance of power, all the people need do is to enforce that which now exists. SUPERCEDE THE EXISTING POWERS OF CONGRESS There exists in the Constitution a power, an emergency power, to accomplish a balanced annual federal budget. That power, to impose an emergency direct tax on the states, is referred to elsewhere in this book as the rule of apportionment, and is identified publicly sometimes as the `Fair Share Method' or the `State Rate Tax.' (Many 3rd Parties are or have adopted this as their balanced budget proposal, and information about it is contained later in this book, and in the Appendix.) Its only purpose is to give Congress the mechanism by which to prevent year end or continually accumulating deficits. However, if any of the proposed BBAs, in their current forms, were to be adopted, this existing power would be, for all practical purposes, erased. Much research has recently been devoted by patriots to exposing to public awareness the amazing realities of this seldom discussed power of Congress to quash deficits. After a BBA is passed, a judge ruling on a constitutional question about this power would likely say: "Yes, you are right. Congress could have balanced Page 57 of 155

the budget using this power. However, since this amendment was adopted for the specific purpose of achieving a planned balanced budget, the previous powers are considered moot under the blanket of the amendment." BBA SUMMARY Many groups and individuals support the notion of a BBA. Unfortunately, most who do are either unaware of, or they neglect, the ability Congress has to effect an annually balanced federal budget under the "State Rate Tax" (apportionment) method. Until now, this has been attributed to a general lack of public knowledge about Congress' monetary abilities under the provisions of the Constitution. Recent revelations of historical proofs now show conclusively a BBA is unnecessaryif members of Congress are compelled by the states to obey the Constitution they took an oath to uphold. Why does anyone think that Congress will obey another amendment to the Constitution, when that body has consistently ignored its existing provisions, and more precisely, its legislative intent? Passing a BBA (at least the ones seen thus far), would allow the current spend/borrow/tax policies of Congress to continue. Passage would jeopardize other Constitutional provisions, and would summarily fail to achieve the goal of a balanced annual federal budget. Other proposals offered by "budget conscious" Congressmen (read that"tax and spend") only serve to add additional burdens to our industries and production base. In an economy already succumbing to the pressure of over-taxation, the question now is: "How much more can we bear?" Proposed BBAs using words like `unless' and `except' are colossal farces, at best. At worst, every BBA thus far proposed would in fact legalize that which is now forbidden. These proposed BBAs are dangerous toys in the hands of a Congress who epitomizes irresponsibility. They are subversive to the intent of the founders of this nation, positively will not cure the problems we now face as a nation, and are merely based on political vote catering to so-called conservatives who do not have a clue what is really going on. Americans need to promote a budget balancing method, not amendments. That method is found at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America, and is supported by the other pieces of documentation. Many people are trying to convince the American public that a BBA is the only solution to the nation's budgetary dilemma. This has been done prior to answering the basic question: is the budgetary problem an institutional one requiring constitutional change, or is the problem a policy and procedural one whereby changing policy and/or the officials that make that policy would be a better answer to the problem? The majority of Americans trust their attorney-representatives and senators to understand the law and to propose workable solutions to our national problems of debt. Unfortunately it appears that neither the Congress nor the general public has enough knowledge of how our government is supposed to operate to even address the issue with a modicum of intelligence. The people believe the nightly news version, or the wording of the proposed BBAs will actually accomplish the desired end result. Many also believe in Santa Claus. Is Congress serious about limiting its own power? Who really believes that any government official is going to be a knowing party to any measure that would limit his power? If anything, their "good intentions" must be carefully scrutinized for excuses to increase it! LINE ITEM VETO (LIV) Straight from the pages of England's handbook on Parliamentary government is the notion of a line-item veto. Under this provision, the President would have the ability to `cut' single items from Congress' revenue bills. This is supported seemingly across the board by both liberals and conservatives. Page 58 of 155

At first glance, the line item veto seems a good way to give the President the power to eliminate any `pork' he finds in the budget. In reality, it gives the President powers to encourage pork. How? Imagine the power of a President with LIV authority. A congressman wants a new defense manufacturing facility built in his home district. The President simply targets that item as a `potential' cut, and immediately that congressman must lick the boots of his fearful master or his pet project is threatened. The line-item veto amounts to transferring enormous powers of the purse to the executive, in complete and flagrant disregard for the separation of powers. It would encourage Congress to fund all sorts of items, in exchange for the favoritism the President will ask for in return for his support. No my friends, the line item veto is a MOST dangerous farce. TERM LIMITS The final proposal we will address is the notion of imposing term limits on members of Congress. As with the other suggested changes to our United States Constitution, term limits viewed through traditional `liberal' and `conservative' eyes are a good thing. Viewed by the framers of the Constitution, reasonable doubt appears. When debating the length of time members of Congress would serve, the plan was drafted to have frequent elections in the U.S. House of Representatives. Simply put, people who serve in Washington were to have very close ties to home--to the economics and interests of their territories. Obviously, career politicians loose touch quickly. This is why there is already a two year election mandate, and members of Congress deemed out of sync with their districts should be retired by the constituencies thereof. Term limits are a double edge sword. There are members of Congress who are very solid on the issues of their constituencies. Mandatory term limits would prevent voters from reelecting a good individual--just as they may achieve the beneficial result of retiring the NWO connected. Our nation was founded on the principles of self government. Allowing the people the right to elect, or reelect, whomever they choose, is a solid foundation of republican government. Telling the public they cannot reelect a good congressmen by an arbitrary passage of time is simply a restriction on the minds of the people. It is another control by force. However desirable it may be to retire some hard-line anti-federalists, it must not be done at the expense of the liberty of the public to elect whomever they feel best represents their views. Better would be the concerted efforts of patriots to involuntarily retire by criminal prosecution those who would circumvent our Constitution's terms and conditions. Our focus should be working during the campaigns to retire at the ballot box those who are not acting in the interests of the people. Those who have been in Congress with an utter disregard for the principles identified in the Federalist Papers, should be voted outeven if they have only been there two years. When the most recent term limit constitutional amendment proposal came up before Congress, many of the five-plus term members voted for the amendment. Who are they trying to kid? If that crowd wanted to make a statement in favor of term limits, they should simply resign! (Truth is, they knew well in advance what the final vote would be prior to casting it, and enough of them "supported" the idea to make themselves appear conservative in the eyes of their constituencies. Bah! We are educated to some degree in this nation, not total idiots! America would be far better off without the vast majority of the long-term members now in office. I put together some "Vote'em Out" pamphlets as part of LEADERS a few years back, and surveyed the voting records of five-plus term members to ascertain how they voted on key Constitution-related issues in the past ten years. Only nine out of 189 members surveyed [4.8%] scored 80% or better. [43.4% of the House has been in office 5+ terms!] Only two members scored 90%, and none voted in conformity to the Constitution 100% of the time!

Page 59 of 155

SUMMARY Numerous proposals exist today that are not as desirable as the `conservatives' would have us believe. These include the notions for a balanced budget amendment, a line item veto amendment, and a constitutional amendment dictating term limits. In reality, every excuse is being used to OPEN A CONVENTION WHICH IS THE REAL GOAL! Be it immigration or federalism excuses, there is a concerted movement afoot to open a convention the first since 1787. Let no amount of smoke and mirrors blur the notion of why this convention is desirable by those who would reduce our rights to revokable privileges. A BBA would be useless, the line item veto would erode the separation of powers even furthertransferring dangerous powers of the purse to the President, and term limits would be ill advised because the people already have a way to VOTE OUT their Congressmen every two or six years. (The state legislatures should monitor the United States Senate, and advise the people of their state accordingly on their performance.) THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION The desire for a Constitutional convention can be founded on only two ideas. First, there could be an agenda to put aside what the Founding Fathers created. Secondly, a complete misunderstanding of the language of the Constitution could cause people to support concepts (like the BBA, LIV, Term Limits, Immigration Reform, etc.) which would not be in their best interest. The convention is also promoted as a way to "restore federalism." Both are sick reasons for a venture into a Constitutional convention (Con-con). Promoters of a convention today cite `problems with federalism' as the rationale to have a convention. Do they have ulterior motives? Is the public so ignorant of the Constitution that they believe whatever the nightly news tells them? Sadly, both appear to be true. Today the winds of change are blowing. The people recognize that, for some reason, the federal government has outstepped its constitutional boundaries. Christians are even being herded into the push for constitutional change for such items as an amendment precluding gay marriages. (As anyone with a pulse realizes, marriage is [or should be] neither a federal nor a state regulatory [licensing] matter. That institution is properly governed entirely by the churches, and at the Higher level, by God and the couple. Making a federal matter of it is inviting all sorts of separation of Church & state problems!) It is increasingly obvious that the majority of Americans are fed up to their 1040's with the federal government. Using the `crisis of federalism' as a rallying call for `conservative reforms,' the promoters of a convention have moved dangerously close to opening pandora's box. If a convention is opened, not one amendment at a time, but the entire Constitution would be laid on a surgical table for review and/or elimination in favor of a `21st century Ivy League' version. A convention shall be convened by Congress when two-thirds of the states petition as such. With 50 states, that means thirty-four must do so. Over two-hundred years have passed since the last Constitutional convention met in Philadelphia. Today, we stand on the verge of a second. Ever since the 1700's various states have called, at one time or another, for a Constitutional convention. A real push began in 1974 with the notion of an Equal Rights Amendment. The momentum began fizzling out though when the American people began to balk at the thoughts of major surgery on the framework that had preserved them for so long. Various special interest groups have been identified as having agendas not consistent with their rhetoric. No other states, despite repeated attempts to do so, were able to get Con-con calling resolutions through since the 1980's. Three states passed resolutions repealing their earlier calls for a convention. Although being brought to the brink of institutional change, the Congress has failed to respond to the sense of urgency felt among the people and the states. The calls for a convention cited the need for Congress to get its fiscal house in order by balancing the federal budget. Congress should have been terrified at the thought of the states playing with power like that. Why were they not? The answer could only be that, as a body, Page 60 of 155

Congress would welcome a modern convention, with the public ignorance factor so high. They could walk out even more omnipotent! Some groups are not advocating a return to limited national government the way the rhetoric of Con-con promoters would leave one to believe. One such group, the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), suggested a platform of "reforms" to be made in the form of constitutional amendments. While the CCS does not claim to advocate a Constitutional convention to achieve these changes, the CCS says they will be ready if one is convened. What changes do they want? CCS changes would give the President the power to: declare "no confidence" in Congress and force an unscheduled congressional election; Appoint congressmen to his cabinet (eliminating the requirement that they first resign their congressional seat); Appoint members of his cabinet to Congress; To appoint one additional congressman for every five duly elected. Other Proposals would: 1. Run candidates on a party slate (Voters would therefore vote for party, not for any individual candidate based on his qualifications.) 2. Restructure the terms of office from 2 years to 4 years for representatives, and from 6 to 8 years for senators; 3. Repeal the two term limit for a President to hold office. The program of CCS "reforms" is outlined in their book "Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System."(*) The changes the CCS proposes would create a Parliamentary system of government. Would those changes improve the political climate of America, or restore state sovereignty? You have got to be joking!
(*) "Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System" Edited by Donald L. Robinson. Boulder Westview Press, 1985.

Under the auspices of balancing the federal budget, a second Constitutional convention could be convened in the very near future--if the needed states ratify calls to Congress for one. The CCS could achieve `reforms' that would create an entirely foreign form of government. Do their suggestions seem like desirable `reforms?' Other proposals are floating around as well. (**) Indeed the radical left has many "draft" new constitutions ready and waiting for a convention to open the door to more "modern" ideas in government. Of course, these ideas are not new. But they are ready, the first chance they get.
(**) See also the proposed "Constitution for the Newstates of America" found in "The Emerging Constitution" by Rexgord G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974)

Many claim that opening a Constitutional convention today could bring on a national crisis of equal or greater repercussions than the Civil War. Why? Because of the unknowns. The United States is considered a safe haven for foreign investment, and many billions of dollars (maybe not `dollars,' but investment paper, nonetheless) flow into America annually. A Constitutional convention could easily trigger a sudden reversal in that trend. Foreign investors would not know what kind of government might emerge from a convention. They would therefore feel their funds to be in jeopardy and take steps to remove massive quantities of cash from circulation suddenly. After the convention of 1787, when talk was brewing of holding yet another convention, Madison warned against it. Holland had recently loaned America money to keep it solvent, and Europeans feared a convention would negate that loan by some new procedure. Madison stated:

Page 61 of 155

"Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper of America ...the prospect of a second convention would be viewed by all of Europe as a dark cloud hanging over the Constitution." Letter to George Turberville from James Madison, 1787 The prospect of opening a Con-con in todays climate immediately calls into question the financial impact of a Con-con on Wall Street, in Tokyo, in London, and in the investment centers of the world. With billions of foreign investment money in the United States today, how would international investors view the prospects of an event which could alter the financial structure of the United States? How would foreign investors view a convention `in the current temper of America?' Could this be the way already planned to collapse the American Dollar, and usher in the new Amero (Canada-US-Mexico) common currency? All things considered, this is the one aspect of calling for a Con con that bothers me almost as much as the prospects of scrapping the bill of rights. The `giant sucking sound' might come from the fast withdraw of investment funds from banks and companies in these United States. A depression would likely result. Such a depression would cause the people to willingly accept any promise of food that a new government would make. In fact, the people would probably forget everything they knew about freedom in such a time of crisis (much as they did during the vacuum of money leaving the USA in the 1930's, which permitted Roosevelts promise of "two chickens in every pot" to be graciously accepted, even with the corresponding loss of liberties that accompanied it). That is but one negative aspect of opening a convention in the 21st Century. Is supporting the concept of a convention the same as supporting the concept of balancing the federal budget, as promoters of a convention assert? Historical evidence indicates that Congress has it completely within its powers to effect an annually balanced budget. Therefore a convention is completely unwarranted on that basis. "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution of the United States. Miracles do not cluster; what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution; for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world." Daniel Webster, 1851 The Constitution has served America well for over 200 years. It provided the means by which amendments could be proposed and debated one at a time, so that any and all changes would have to be reviewed by the states and agreed to by three-fourths thereof. A Constitutional convention has inherent risks. Although the debate will continue to rage over whether a convention can be limited to a single issue like balancing the federal budget, there is another issue on the minds of the states. The paradox: the only way to find out if a convention will be limited is to have one. That is a dangerous experiment. Many state legislators now realize this as a result of tremendous grass-roots pressure being applied. Despite repeated attempts to pass Con-con calling resolutions, all recent efforts have been thwarted. The people realize the state legislatures themselves can be bypassed in the ratification process if Congress declares state conventions are to be used to ratify proposed changes. Conventions would operate totally outside the public election process, and could theoretically be picked by the dominant party or power structure of each state! A federal Constitutional convention is a dangerous experiment indeed! Use the model resolution in any state listed at the beginning of this brief to repeal existing state calls for a Constitutional convention. Present it to your state legislators, and let's end this potential threat to freedom.

Page 62 of 155

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.) HOW DOES A CONVENTION OPERATE? 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. 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? 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. WHO WILL BE THE DELEGATES TO A CONVENTION? 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. 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. 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. 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? 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.

Page 63 of 155

WHERE WILL THE CONVENTION BE HELD? 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. WHY IS A CONVENTION DESIRED? 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. 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. 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. 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? IS IT SAFE TO ASSUME THAT A CONVENTION WOULD LIMIT ITSELF TO THE SINGLE ISSUE OF BALANCING THE FEDERAL BUDGET? 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 NOT the proper way to handle it.) 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. 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. Page 64 of 155

CAN THE CONGRESS MANDATE A ONE ISSUE CONVENTION? 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. 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. 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 (DDel.) In Senate Report 99-135 reflect: "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. "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." HOW WOULD THE PRODUCT OF A CONVENTION BE RATIFIED? 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. FACT: Henry Hazlitt, National Taxpayers Union advisor and author of "A New Constitution Now,"10 stated: "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 . . ." 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? 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


A New Constitution Now Henry Hazlitt, NY, McGraw (1942); 2nd edition Arlington House, 1974.

Page 65 of 155

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. 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? MYTHS & REALITY: BAIT AND SWITCH 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. 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. #1. THE THREAT OF A CONVENTION WILL FORCE CONGRESS TO ACT. 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. #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. 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. 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. 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. ". . . 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." 11


Thomas Jefferson from the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

Page 66 of 155

THE CON-CON PROMOTERS The promoters of a Constitutional convention fall into two subgroups: A. The organized and well-financed groups who have agendas to promote in a convention; and B. The people who believe one of the stories sponsored by the leadership of convention-promoting groups. 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. 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. 12 THE COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM 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. 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... "unified by mechanical linkages . . . If we are to turn the founders upside down . . . we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected." 13 Obviously Mr. Burns doesn't like the system of checks and balances the Founding Fathers devised in order to prevent tyranny. 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. 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 . . . THE NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION 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

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 many people, including Lloyd Cuttler, has not (see also the Committee to Preserve an Elected Congress, headed by Phyllis Schlafly, at


The Power To Lead James M. Burns, 1984 p. 160

Page 67 of 155

position of the NTU, Jim Davidson14, 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. 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. His advisor, Henry Hazlitt,15 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). 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.) 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? 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. "Our government is suffering from a division of authority, a paralysis between the executive and Congress . . . A parliamentary system is much more flexible." J. William Fulbright, former Arkansas senator 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). 16 SECTION C: PROPOSAL FOR A "CONFERENCE OF STATES" 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." 17 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.

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.

Hazlitt does not currently appear on the roster of NTU staff. Source: NTLC:


Again, this was written in 1988, with a few minor updates in 1995. The States Petition idea was also resolutely defeated, after the Constitutions protectors, like Eagle Forum and others, caught wind of that attempt.


Page 68 of 155

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. 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. 18 Nelson and Leavitt cite as their reason for suggesting COS their concern over imbalances in the statefederal 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. 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. 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? 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!) 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? 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.' But maybe Governor Leavitt would like to use the Conference of States to achieve a more "global" agenda? 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.' 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? 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 at the expense of states rights. 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


Neither of these two are still in their governor offices.

Page 69 of 155

construction funding, etc. are all illegal under the existing constitutional formula for distributing federal monies. 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. 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. COS is not a debate about how to achieve a proper balance between the states and the federal government. It is a PLOT to change the Constitution by people who are NOT concerned about states' rights. There are several primary groups promoting the COS agenda. They include the National Conference of State Legislatures,19 the National Governors Association,20 and the American Legislative Exchange Council.21 These COS promoting groups are already informal 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 institutional change in a most deceptive way. SECTION B & C SUMMARY 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. 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. 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. 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. Former U.S. Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland (a elite member of `the club') once stated:




Page 70 of 155

"The state legislatures that have called for a Constitutional convention are playing with fire." 22 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? 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. 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 every other state where introduced, however.) STATE ACTION IN PROGRESS 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. 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! 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. For your information, the following states have passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional convention ostensibly to balance the federal budget: 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. 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.

Former U.S. Senator Charles Mathias @ pp.63, Supplemental Views, Report #99-135, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.


Page 71 of 155

Legacy Document Collection

Assorted documents proving the motivation for such a convention has NOTHING to do with balancing the federal budget or restoring federalism. The true motive is making STRUCTURAL CHANGES to the Constitution, up to and including replacing the existing Constitution with the ALREADY DRAFTED: CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEW STATES OF AMERICA

Included herein is a reproduction of the new constitution proffered for a convention by Rexforg G. Tugwell. This is evidence and proof that IF a new Constitutional Convention opens, the new constitution is already prepared for adoption. Notice especially how ALL the rights we currently enjoy as unconditional have been converted into revokable privileges any time the president would declare an emergency. Note also the creation of an entirely new branch of government dubbed the regulatory branch. STOP THE INSANITY! NO NEW CONVENTION! NO NEW CONSTITUTION!

Page 72 of 155

A man and his wife are having a conversation. Honey, I am going to the ball park for the specific and exclusive purpose of buying a hot dog. She inquires in response: So if a ball game begins, you are LEAVING immediately? Yes, he replies. Question: Whether or not he is telling his wife the truth, WILL THE BALL GAME CONTINUE, EVEN IN HIS ABSENSE? This is the game our politicians are playing by trying to constrain a convention to ANY single issue (balancing the budget, etc.)

Page 73 of 155

Page 74 of 155

National Legion OPPOSES Calling a Convention

Page 75 of 155

Page 76 of 155

Page 77 of 155

Can a Convention be limited to any single issue? Testimony before Congress shows otherwise.

Page 78 of 155

Page 79 of 155

Page 80 of 155

Page 81 of 155

Page 82 of 155

Page 83 of 155

Page 84 of 155

Page 85 of 155

Page 86 of 155

Page 87 of 155

Page 88 of 155

Page 89 of 155

Page 90 of 155

Page 91 of 155

Page 92 of 155

Page 93 of 155

Page 94 of 155

Statement of Former Chief Justice, Warren Burger

Page 95 of 155

Page 96 of 155

Page 97 of 155

Page 98 of 155

Page 99 of 155

Page 100 of 155

Page 101 of 155

Page 102 of 155

Page 103 of 155

Page 104 of 155

Page 105 of 155

Page 106 of 155

Page 107 of 155

Page 108 of 155

Page 109 of 155

Page 110 of 155

Page 111 of 155

Page 112 of 155

Page 113 of 155

Page 114 of 155

Page 115 of 155

Page 116 of 155

Page 117 of 155

Page 118 of 155

Page 119 of 155

Page 120 of 155

Good Advice Against a Con Con

Phyllis Schlafly ( April 9, 2010

Suggestions that the United States call a new constitutional convention, as allowed in the Constitution's Article V, have popped up in some state legislatures and even on a page in the Wall Street Journal. No longer do these voices claim a convention can be limited to consideration of a single amendment (e.g., a Balanced Budget Amendment); grandstanding politicians are proposing a wide assortment of many amendments to produce big changes. Speaking to us from across the years, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, wrote this warning on November 2, 1788, against calling another general constitutional convention. "If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. "Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned." Madison's prophetic warnings against a general convention to amend our Constitution (now colloquially called a Con Con) are even more compelling today. Let's examine them. A new convention would "naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress" to amend the Constitution. Indeed, that's exactly what the Con Con advocates want: a convention to do what Congress won't do. A Con Con would "give greater agitation to the public mind." Indeed, a Con Con would attract dozens of groups agitating for various changes, creating a bigger media event even than a presidential election and dominated by Mainstream Media and theatrical demonstrators. The election of Con Con delegates "would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides." Although Nancy Pelosi would probably be in charge of the numbers and apportionment of Con Con delegates, their election would surely attract "violent partisans on both sides" of many issues. The Con Con would "probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters . . . heated men of all parties." Think a repeat performance of the way the Obama crowd turned out voters in 2008 through his "Organizing for America." Think ACORN, illegal voters and vote frauds. The Con Con "would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts . . . might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations" of our Constitution. A Con Con would, indeed, be a big attraction for individuals of "insidious" and "dangerous" views that could eat away at the foundations of liberty and a sovereign independent republic. These would include pressure groups seeking an elimination of the Second Amendment, global governance through treaty law, deletion of the provision that requires a two-thirds majority of Senators to ratify treaties (the favorite change urged by the Council on Foreign Relations), the addition of new constitutional rights (such as

Page 121 of 155

same-sex marriage and health care), elimination of the Electoral College, and other "insidious" and "dangerous" changes. We could not presume that "the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony." "Harmony"? You must be dreaming! Indeed, it would be a wild and raucous political event of world-class magnitude. Have you ever attended a hotly contested Republican or Democratic National Nominating Convention? Think the Democrats in Chicago in 1968 or Republicans in San Francisco in 1964 or Chicago in 1952. Now imagine the Obama demonstrators and the John McCain demonstrators trying to agree on language to adopt. Madison trembled for the result of another convention in the "temper of America" in his time. We should, indeed, tremble for the result "in the present temper of America." Think Obama's proclaimed goal of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Madison reminded us that the first Constitutional Convention "assembled under every propitious circumstance." Those propitious circumstances included having George Washington as convention chairman. Somehow, we don't see any George Washington or James Madison today, and we don't want to put our fate in the hands of men who think they can improve on the work of George Washington and James Madison.

A Warning About Things To Come

Phyllis Schlafly ( Feb 25, 2011)

Have you seen the television pictures of the tens of thousands of demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol who are protesting proposed budget cuts for state employees? If so, you've had an advance peek at the sort of demonstrations that will take place if state legislatures are foolish enough to pass resolutions asking Congress to call a national convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Barack Obama's political arm, "Organizing for America," swelled the crowds by busing in protesters from Wisconsin and from other states, too. A national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would become the media event of the century, with 24/7 TV coverage, giving us every reason to anticipate that "Organizing for America" would flood the process of electing delegates and then demonstrate to hurl demands on their deliberations. All of a sudden, as though someone gave the signal, resolutions are pending in several state legislatures to use the never-before-used power set forth in Article V to petition Congress to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments." This campaign exploits the frustration of many Americans with Congress's out-of-control spending, increase in the national debt (with much of it borrowed from China), and passage of laws, such as ObamaCare, that severely limit our freedoms. Many state legislators are promising that a Convention would be limited to consideration of only one specific amendment. No way. Article V clearly specifies that a Convention is for the purpose of "proposing Amendments" (note the plural). Furthermore, various state resolutions support different Amendments. Some specify that the one Amendment to be considered must be the Repeal Amendment (to allow states to repeal an act of Congress), others want the one Amendment to be Debt Limitation, others want a Balanced Budget Amendment, others want a change in the Electoral College, others want to abolish the 17th Amendment, and one proposal is for a list of ten Amendments. When the protesters assemble, we can be sure that many special-interest groups will be pushing their own agendas. You can bet that a once-in-a-lifetime Convention will attract activists demanding union rights (like the Wisconsin demonstrators), gay rights, gun control, abortion rights, ERA, and D.C. Statehood. Calling a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would be a plunge into darkness because the only rules to govern it are those specified in Article V. It takes two-thirds (34) of the states to pull the trigger, Congress controls and issues the Call, and the Convention must consider Amendments (in the plural).

Page 122 of 155

Anyone who has attended a national political convention knows very well that the guy with the gavel exercises ruthless power. I've attended 15 Republican National Conventions plus many other national, state and district political conventions, and I've seen every kind of high-handed tactic and rules broken with the bang of the gavel, including cutting off mikes, recognizing only pre-chosen delegates, expelling unwanted delegates, cheating on credentials and rules, fixing the voting machines, etc., etc. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a national hero for winning the case that persuaded a judge to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, stated on the steps of the Capitol in Richmond on January 17: "What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." That blows away the silly claims by advocates of a new Convention, such as the so-called Goldwater Institute in Arizona (which was never known by Barry Goldwater), that the state legislatures can "define the agenda of an Amendments Convention," restricting it to a specific Amendment or a single subject. The Goldwater Institute cites Article V language that no state can "be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" to allegedly prove that an Amendments Convention cannot "rewrite the entire Constitution." Au contraire. Saying that a Convention cannot do one thing actually means that the Convention can do everything else except that one thing. Goldwater Institute spokesmen try to predict what procedures would be followed by an Amendments Convention, but in fact nobody knows what procedures would be used. Congress has defeated all bills that tried to establish rules, so we don't know how the delegates would be chosen, whether they would be paid, how they would be apportioned among the states, whether they would have to have a super-majority to vote out a new Amendment, etc., etc. Goldwater Institute spokesmen try to claim James Madison is on their side, but their history is as faulty as their arguments. Madison wrote: "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."

Article V: Con-Con or Nothing is the Cry of This Cause Clbre

By Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. (

Although leadership of the movement to call for an Article V convention of states go to great lengths to assure supporters that this meeting would not be a constitutional convention, the message apparently hasnt reached the Illinois state legislature. The Short Description of the bill provided on the official website of the Illinois General Assembly is US Constitutional Convention. This Freudian slip will surely result in a phone call from some big-money backer of the Article V convention within hours of the publication of this article. In fairness, though, the rest of the bill performs the requisite grammatical gymnastics that are the hallmark of ALEC-approved Article V legislative language. As with other resolutions making their way through various state legislatures, the Illinois measure makes critical errors in its application of the letter of Article V of the Constitution. Article V reads: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Page 123 of 155

Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Notice, concerned constitutionalists, that there is not a single word in that very important and controversial provision that provides for a limited convention. That did not stop the state legislature of Illinois from making that critical error, however. Citing its opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and related cases and events, Senate Joint Resolution 42 calls for a convention limited to considering this issue. The plain language of Article V limits neither the scope of the convention it anticipates nor the number of the amendments that may be proposed at such a meeting. In fact, if the purpose of the suggested convention is to propose amendments to the Constitution, doesnt that make it per se a constitutional convention, regardless of how narrow an agenda those calling for the convention say they will follow? It seems very dangerous to rely on semantics as a balance to the risks that would attend such a convention, regardless of the language preferred by its advocates. Furthermore, those of us with faith in the work of the Founders likely agree that adding and deleting words from the Constitution is a sin typically committed by enemies of our Republic, not by those who call themselves true constitutionalists. As John Locke wrote in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Every man carries about him a touchstone, if he will make use of it, to distinguish substantial gold from superficial glitterings, truth from appearances. When it comes to the United States of America, the touchstone each one of us carries is the Constitution. We must insist that everyone particularly those who would have us accept them as savior of the Republic adhere to the precise language of that sacred document and do not add or subtract from it for their own purposes, no matter how noble they believe them to be. Anyone claiming to revere the Constitution particularly those on the right of the political spectrum should never be guilty of skulking about in constitutional penumbras to find justifications for their causes. On another pressing point, there seems to be a substantial segment of the otherwise well-intentioned constitutionalists, wary of the unchecked expansion of the federal government, that are giving into the lure of the cult of personality pushing for an Article V convention. The names of the members of the corps of conservative celebrities fighting for this historical event are well known and need not be repeated here. What does need to be rehearsed, however, is the writing in 1787 by Samuel Bryan, a Pennsylvania anti-federalist who employed the pseudonym "Centinel." Note how very applicable Bryans words are to our own situation, particularly when it comes to the big names associated with the Article V movement: Whether it be calculated to promote the great ends of civil society, viz. the happiness and prosperity of the community; it behoves you well to consider, uninfluenced by the authority of names. Instead of that frenzy of enthusiasm, that has actuated the citizens of Philadelphia, in their approbation of the proposed plan, before it was possible that it could be the result of a rational investigation into its principles; it ought to be dispassionately and deliberately examined, and its own intrinsic merit the only criterion of your patronage. Let us avoid, my fellow constitutionalists, joining the ranks of those pushing for an Article V constitutional convention (and, yes, it will be a constitutional convention) because of the influence of the authority of names who have made the issue their latest cause clbre. Later, "Centinel" has a little more to say that seems like it was written after he read the Article V con-con literature. In nearly every piece of propaganda published by the convention of states proponents, the point is made that if the people dont take back the authority wrested from them by Washington, D.C. (read this article for my response to that claim), the Republic will fall and the federal government will abolish liberty. Page 124 of 155

Now, while I certainly agree that something needs to be done immediately to force the federal beast back inside its constitutional cage and that the states are the ones to administer the remedy (unlike the COS, though, I support the rightful remedy of nullification), I do not believe that without a convention our Constitution will be thrown onto the scrap heap of history. A very important, although as yet unanswered question, is why the Article V con-con proponents have adopted this "convention or nothing" approach to fighting federal overreach? Should we not employ all our weapons before launching this nuclear option? Running the risk of holding a convention attended as it most certainly would be by an unknown and uncontrollable bloc of progressive and socialist delegates is unnecessary and unwise. Also, I reject the all or nothing false dialectic espoused by the COS. For a group that places so much faith in state ratifying conventions, they believe states incapable of playing the role reserved to them in the federal relationship established by the Constitution and as manifested through the nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal government. Finally, there is the money being spent on this endeavor. There are several very wealthy and influential men from both the Left and the Right, writing very big checks to pay the expenses of the traveling spokesmen for the Article V movement, as well as for the advertising and collateral being distributed to sell the idea to those across the political spectrum. On this point again, consider the words and warnings of "Centinel:" The wealthy and ambitious, who in every community think they have a right to lord it over their fellow creatures, have availed themselves, very successfully, of this favorable disposition; for the people thus unsettled in their sentiments, have been prepared to accede to any extreme of government; all the distresses and difficulties they experience, proceeding from various causes, have been ascribed to the impotency of the present confederation, and thence they have been led to expect full relief from the adoption of the proposed system of government, and in the other event, immediately ruin and annihilation as a nation. Constitutionalists should be hopeful that all state legislators pause, resist the attraction of celebrity, the lull of largesse, and the purported inevitably of the ruin of our Republic in the absence of an Article V convention, and consider the alternatives. Then, that they exhaust all these alternatives before opening our Constitution to the tampering of an unaccountable and uncontrollable group of delegates gathered at a constitutional convention.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at

In Defense of Con-Con, Meckler Chooses Ridicule Over Rebuttal

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. (

LOL. Those are the letters with which Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self-Governance and a leader of the movement to bring about an Article V constitutional convention to alter the Constitution, chose to open his response to my article exposing the radical leftist fellow travelers in the convention of the states movement. At The John Birch Society, the parent organization of The New American, we take federalism and the Constitution seriously, and we would choose three other letters to describe the situation: SOS. This Republic is in trouble. This is something all of us agree on. We agree that Washington has run amok, and we all believe the stables on Capitol Hill need to be washed clean, and we know it will take a Herculean effort to do it. Page 125 of 155

We all believe that the answer to our current awful situation is to restore the Constitution. Or do we? There is so much sarcasm and side-stepping in much of the pro-constitutional convention responses that it is difficult to determine what they truly recommend as a remedy (we know, though, it isnt Jeffersons "rightful remedy" of nullification). In much of the material the leadership of the Convention of the States group produces, it seems they would prefer to repair the Constitution rather than restore it. Ask any antiques dealer and hell tell you that there is a big difference between restoration and repair. Restoration is done in a way that will preserve the value and function of the original piece, while repair simply attempts to fix what is broken or poorly functioning on the aged item. Someone repairing an invaluable antique will introduce external material, believing that such will strengthen the broken parts. A restorer, however, knows that only original pieces, no matter how difficult to preserve or attain, must be used to return the treasure to its prior glory. In the hands of experts, in fact, the antique can be restored in such a careful manner that it will not only retain the value of the original, but it will increase it. Perhaps the worst part of dealing in antiques restoration is trying to undo someones unskilled repair. What could and should have been done delicately and according to tried and true techniques is scrapped by a hasty repair job, making a proper, lasting restoration much more difficult. The analogy is obvious. Our Constitution is indeed an antique, a priceless heirloom handed down to us by our noble forefathers. Lately, some of the Constitutions caretakers have damaged the document, and admirers of the document recognize that its time to restore it and to restrain the federal government any time it tries to put a hand on it. Unwisely, the con-con collaborators have chosen to try to "fix" the broken Constitution. While there are admittedly several qualified constitutional experts found among the convention of the states proponents, there are many in their camp who would slap shoddy materials on the Constitution, leaving it worthless and non-working. As I revealed in a previous article, there are dozens of socialist, progressive, and radically leftist organizations that are not only supporting the con-con movement, but behind them are billionaire fascists who will throw good money after bad to ensure these organizations (that work for them) get a seat at the convention of the states. Which brings me to my next point: Are Messrs. Meckler, Levin, Dranias, et al. prepared to abide by the radical amendments to our Constitution that could be the product of their beloved convention? Legally and constitutionally speaking, there is nothing the conservative bloc of the convention advocates could do to prevent delegates selected from the leftist wing of their movement from attending and influencing the convention they propose. Imagine for a minute some of the repairs to our Constitution that the progressive delegates would offer. Actually, we dont have to imagine. In an upcoming article, I will expose the shocking slate of items on the radical agenda of the many representatives of the leftist lobby fighting for the Article V convention. Thats not to say we are going to give the self-described conservatives a pass. Not at all. In fact, a separate article will reveal strong ties between establishment Republicans and many of those pushing for a con-con who claim to be from the Right Wing. Suffice for now to say that many of the rank and file in the army calling for an Article V convention will be dismayed to learn the details of their leaders' association with groups with records contrary to constitutional principles. And what about some of the self-professed conservatives who are clamoring for a convention? Imagine the good use the powers behind the promoters could make of a few popular, conservative Republicans. These trusted representatives of the Right could effect small but significant changes to the Bill of Rights, and those changes would be packaged and sold to the public as improvements for their safety. These well-promoted tweaks, however, would effectively repeal fundamental rights: the Tenth Amendment (Lets once and for all eliminate this nullification nonsense), the Second Amendment (Even conservatives shun the militia types), the First Amendment ("right to worship" replaces free exercise thereof), and maybe the Sixth Amendment, too (Sit down. Shut up! You dont get a lawyer!). Surely supporters who Page 126 of 155

are savvy recognize that those changes mentioned are all being pushed by conservatives in the convention movement. Even if we could count on genuine conservative (I prefer the label constitutionalist) bona fides of the organizers of the con-con movement, the irrefutable fact is that a convention would not occur in a conservative vacuum. Lobbyists from every industry and every social and political band of the spectrum will slaver for a chance to get their hands on the keys to the kingdom. How will we those concerned for the Constitution and zealous for its perpetuation be able to verify the good intentions of the many delegates sent to the convention of the states? Simply stated: We wont. And that brings up the issue of the election/selection of delegates. Article V is silent on the matter, making it certain that states themselves will establish guidelines for who can be chosen as a delegate and how they will be chosen. Suppose that a state legislature dominated by Republicans drafts the rules in such a way as to gerrymander the convention, making it next to impossible for Democrats to get elected/selected as delegates. Can you imagine the legal donnybrook that would break out? No matter the schedule set by the Article V leadership, the opening of any convention of the states would undoubtedly be indefinitely delayed while the multiple federal lawsuits filed by those who felt disenfranchised by the process worked their way through the judicial system. Next, the most frequent target of pro-convention vitriol is the suggestion, by those of us opposed to a convention, of the so-called runaway convention. I believe history teaches us that there is a legitimate danger that the convention, regardless of prior restraints, could break those chains and run off with the Constitution. Article V advocates contend that the constitutional convention held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 did not exceed its mandate. They claim that the historical record of the convention of 1787 proves that it was not a runaway convention and that a modern-day convention could be carried out without exceeding a very limited purpose. They are wrong for two reasons. First, as soon as Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan on May 29, 1787, the convention broke through boundaries set by some of the participating states. The resolutions proposed by Randolph (and written by James Madison) were not intended (and admittedly so) to revise the Articles of Confederation, but to replace them. Look it up. Ive yet to hear one cogent or convincing argument to the contrary. The fact is that the Articles of Confederation document was the law, and there was a legal (constitutional) method for proposing amendments. That method was mentioned in Congress' call for a convention in Philadelphia. That prescribed method was disregarded from day one. That could happen again and this time, we won't be in the capable hands of James Madison, James Wilson, et al. Second, it is the unalienable right of the people to alter or to abolish [our government], and to institute new Government. Article V establishes the constitutional method for calling a convention of the sovereign people of the United States for this very purpose. Any intellectually honest and historically accurate proponent of the Article V convention of the states must admit that this convention could exercise that God-given right to rule and to replace the broken government with a better one. That happened in Philadelphia in 1787. Over the next week or so, The New American will publish articles expanding on the points I presented above. These articles are not intended to attack anyone personally. I will not do that. If I have done that in the past, Im sincerely sorry. I intend these articles to serve the purpose of educating and warning the many good-hearted, well-intentioned constitutionalists currently found among the ranks of the army calling for a new constitutional convention. Despite what Mark Meckler claimed in his response to my earlier articles, I do not believe that the constitutionalists on his side of this argument are dupes. I just dont believe they are aware of whos fighting alongside them and how closely many of the front-line leaders of their movement are tied to establishment Republicans and other big money lobbyists who are desperate to get their hands on the purse strings. I am hopeful that Mr. Meckler, Mr. Levin, or some other chief of the Convention of the States coalition would write a thoughtful rather than a sarcastic rebuttal to all the points Ive put forth in this article. If any of Page 127 of 155

you talk to either of them or see them around, maybe you can convince them to put down the poison pen and lay out their case with respect respect for the opposition and respect for the intelligence of their own adherents.

Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. (

Recently, The New American has reported on the efforts by radio talk show host Mark Levin and others to push for a constitutional convention (a convention of the states, in the parlance of the proponents). In his new book, Levin argues that such a convention is the last hope to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican roots. Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to Levins siren song and they have gone so far as to deny the constitutionality of nullification and to insist that an Article V convention is the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic. Fighting for the Constitution as given to us by our Founders is a noble goal and the anxiety of the conservative con-con collaborators is understandable. We at The New American and The John Birch Society welcome the help of all those courageous enough to enlist in the battle to defeat the forces of federal absolutism. We part company with those pushing for an Article V convention, however, and we believe that a constitutional convention is not the right way to stop the federal assault on our Constitution and the freedoms it protects. The New American and many other liberty-minded organizations promote nullification as the rightful remedy for curing the constant federal overreaching. We believe that as the agent of the states, the federal government has exceeded its contractual authority and the states as principals have the right to refuse to ratify any such usurpation. Since the publication of Levins admittedly popular book, the battle between those promoting nullification and those advocating for an Article V constitutional convention is a topic getting plenty of coverage in the alternative media. There is another uncomfortable aspect of the Article V movement that is not being discussed, however, but needs to be, particularly in light of the good people who have associated themselves with it. Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side. Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con. On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V convention of the states as the best way to accomplish its ultimate goal:" To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country. In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will: inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks. The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) dont spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the worlds largest online news network. As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology: George Soros (shown). Dan Gainor reports:

Page 128 of 155

In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization 'is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets.' The list is predictable everything from Alternet to the Young Turks. Thats right. George Soros the financier of global fascism is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen. What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get their amendment proposed and accepted by an Article V convention? Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistance [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together. Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic in the worst way. This should be enough to convince all true conservatives, constitutionalists, and friends of liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular and persuasive their generals may be. It will likely surprise these devoted, but deluded, Article V advocates that Wolf-Pac is just the tip of the iceberg. These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered founding member of the Move to Amend coalition. Alliance for Democracy Center for Media and Democracy Code Pink Independent Progressive Politics Network Progressive Democrats of America Sierra Club Vermont for Single Payer Mind you, hundreds more groups committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy are gathered under this umbrella. This hardly seems to be a corps that most Levin listeners would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the fight for a convention of the states. In fairness, these allies likely dont share their conservative cohorts love and loyalty to the Constitution. Its time these right-minded men and women know with whom they are associating. Its doubtful that Mark Levins legion of listeners would be as eager to get behind his Article V con-con agenda if they knew whom they were fighting beside and how radically their new allies want to change our beloved Constitution. And thats the problem. Regardless of the soothing words of Levin or others in the con-con camp, they cannot guarantee the outcome of such a convention. In fact, in light of the lists of leftist groups provided above, the results of the convention could be an outright scrapping of the Constitution written by the Founders in favor of one more in line with the progressive ideologies of Wolf-Pac, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, and others. Remember, according to the history of Article V-style conventions, regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only one amendment (a balanced budget amendment, for example), the delegates elected to the convention would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government. Page 129 of 155

The mind boggles at the potential proposals that could come out of a convention composed of such radical representatives. Dont forget, George Soross billions are funding these fringe groups and politicians aren't known for their ability to resist hefty campaign contributions. Conservatives should shudder at the specter of a convention endowed with power of this magnitude, populated by activists who have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to social justice as their purpose. All the good intentions of the conservatives in the Article V camp would not be enough to force all these devastating changes to the Constitution back inside the progressive Pandora's Box. Readers are encouraged to click the links provided in this article and to investigate for themselves the agenda of the various Article V advocates and to determine if it's worth the risk to our Constitution that would be posed by the presence of these groups in the "convention of the states." Finally, the startling information set out in this article is not meant as an attack on Mark Levin or anyone else working to call a convention of the states. Rather, it is intended to help the thousands of committed constitutionalists who find themselves believing in the Article V gospel hes preaching to realize whos sitting in the pews with them and whose money built the church.

Page 130 of 155

Appendix of Related worthy of consideration materials.

NVCCA Issue Brief #10 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CONGRESS EXERCISING ITS EMERGENCY POWER OF DIRECT TAXATION TO EXTINGUISH YEAR END DEFICITS (BALANCE THE BUDGET) Taxation method a.k.a. The State Rate Tax The following excerpts, each taken from different state documents ratifying the United States Constitution, and other sources, verifies that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from its normal taxing power to meet the public Exigencies (needs), then Congress is required, and has the ability to balance the budget, by the imposition of a direct tax on the States, following the rule of apportionment [the agreed upon formula by which each state contributes its fair share]. . . in so doing, a balanced budget is achieved! FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid. FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Public Exigencies; nor then, Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of suck requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Resolved that the general Government of the United States ought never to impose direct taxes, but where the monies arising from the duties, imposts and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have made a requisition upon the states to Assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions And in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion together with Interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of payment prescribed by such requisition--

Page 131 of 155

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS: Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State's proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition. FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND: 8th. In cases of direct taxes, Congress shall first make requisitions on the several states to assess, levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions, in such way and manner, as the legislatures of the several states shall judge best; and in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion, together with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, from the time prescribed in such requisition. FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA: III. When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the executive power of each state, of the quota of such State, according to the census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised: And if the legislature of any state shall pass a law, which shall be effectual for raising such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected in such state. FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA: Third, When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the Executive power of each State of the quota of such state according to the Census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised; And if the Legislature of any State shall pass a law which shall be effectual for raising such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected, in such State.


5th Congress.]

No. 135.

[2d Session.


Sir: Having been requested to exhibit a calculation of the quotas of the respective States, in a tax of two millions of dollars, proportioned to the number of free white persons, and three-fifths of the number of slaves, as ascertained by the census; also my opinion of what would be a proper rule for apportioning to individuals the proposed tax on lands, houses, and slaves, I respectfully submit the following results and observations: The enumeration, or census, by which the tax must be apportioned, was taken with reference to the first Monday of August, 1790, when a number of persons in the United States was as follows: Free white males of sixteen years and upwards, including heads of families, 813,365 Free white males under sixteen years, 802,127 Free white females, including heads of families, - 1,556,682 Other free persons, exclusive of Indians, 59,511 ____________ Total number of free persons excluding Indians, 3,231,631 Slaves 697,697, of which number three-fifths parts are taken, or, 418,619 ____________ Total, or representative number, - - 3,650,250 The following are the quotas of the respective States, in a tax of two millions of dollars, calculated according to their relative numbers of free persons, exclusive of Indians, and including three-fifths of the number of slaves, to wit: The quota of New Hampshire, - - - $77,705 Massachusetts, - - - 260,435 Rhode Island, - - - 37,502 Connecticut, - - 129,676 Vermont, - - 46,864 New York, - - 181,680 New Jersey, - - 98,378 Pennsylvania, - - 237,177 Delaware, - - 30,430 Maryland, - - 152,599 Virginia, - - 345,488 Kentucky, - - 37,643 North Carolina, - - 193,697 Tennessee, - - 18,806 South Carolina, - - 112,997 Georgia, - - 38,814 _________________ Total of the proposed tax, $2,000,000.00 36.2 31.2 8.0 00.2 18.7 70.7 25.3 72.7 79.2 95.4 66.5 99.7 96.5 38.3 73.9 87.5


An Act to provide for the payment of that part of the Direct Tax of the United States, which is apportioned to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and for other purposes. [Passed January 24, 1815.] Virginia's quota 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That so much of of the Direct Tax the Direct Tax of the United States, as is or may be, assumed, to be during the present session of Congress, imposed on and paid by a disapportioned to the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall be, count of the exand the same is hereby assumed, to be paid in such isting and future manner, and at such period, as is or may be prescribed accounts of this and allowed by a law of Congress provided, the State against the Executive of this State be able to effect the United States. discharge and payment of the said assumed quota by a discount of the existing or future accounts of this State against the government of the United States. Said accounts to 2. And be it further enacted, That the Executive be, and be finally adjustthey are hereby empowered and requested, finally to adjusted by the Execu- and settle the existing or future claims, and accounts tive for the purof this Commonwealth, upon the government of the pose of effecting United States, for the purpose of discounting and such discount. setting off the whole or a part of the sum, which may If this be impracbe ascertained to be due this State against the quota ticable, the Exeof the aforesaid Direct Tax: and, should this be cutive may reimpracticable, to receive, in discharge of the same, ceive, in discharge Treasury notes or certificates of Stock of the United of the same, Treasury States, Notes or certificates of stock. Communi3. And be it further enacted, That the Executive be cation to be made to requested forthwith to communicate with the government the Government of the of the United States, upon this subject, and use their U, States, upon this efforts to carry this Act into effect. subject. Commencement 4. This Act shall be in force from and after the passage thereof.


WHEREAS by a law of the Congress of the U.S. entitled an act to lay and collect a direct tax, within the United States, passed the second day of August, Preamble. one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, it is enacted, that the quota thereof for the state of Kentucky, should be one hundred and sixty-eight thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight dollars, seventy-six cents. By the seventh section of the said act it is provided, "that each state may pay its quota into the treasury of the United States, and thereon be entitled to a deduction of fifteen per centum, if paid before the tenth day of February next:" And whereas it is deemed expedient that this state should accede to the proposition, upon the terms aforesaid: Therefore, Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That for the purposes The treasuraforesaid, the treasurer of this state, by and with er authorized the advice and direction of the governor, be emto borrow powered to borrow, on the credit of the state, the 100,000 dols. the sum of one hundred thousand dollars; or such at 6 per cent. part thereof, as the governor may hereafter deem necessary, at an interest not exceeding six per centum per annum: And for the purpose of reimbursing the money loanHow to be re- ed to the state under the provisions of this act, an paid. equal tax, according to the real value of each respective article, shall be assessed and laid, on the real value of all lands and lots of ground, with their improvements, dwelling houses, slaves, and every other species of property now subject to taxation by the revenue laws of this state. Taxes, & c. Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, That a sufficient pledged for portion of the taxes and other income arising from the re-pay the state's fund in the bank of Kentucky, be, and ment of the the same is hereby pledged for the payment of loan. said loan, and the interest arising thereon: and the To be paid said loan shall be paid and discharged within six within 6 yrs. years, or such shorter period, from the time of obtaining the same, in such payments as the governor of the state shall direct. Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, That the sum of $45,000 to forty-five thousand dollars be, and the same is be drawn out hereby appropriated out of the public treasury; of the treas- which, together with the money directed to be ury. borrowed as above, shall be, and is hereby applied, to the payment of the said quota; and the treasurer Treasurer's is hereby authorized and required to pay the same duty. into the treasury of the United States, in discharge Page 135 of 155

of the quota aforesaid, on or before the tenth day of February next: And the treasurer, under the direction of the governor, is further required to give notice to the secretary of the treasury of the United States, of the intention hereby manifested, to pay such quota before the tenth day of January next. Bank of KenSec. 4. Be it further enacted, That the bank of tucky and its Kentucky, or any of its branches, may, in the disbranches au- cretion of its president and directors, loan to thorized to the treasurer, for the use of the state as aforeloan the state said, any sum of money, for any period of time money for a longer than sixty days. longer period than 60 days. Sec. 5. Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That the governor, for the time being, Governor au- and his successors, be, and he is here authorized to thorized and empowered, from time to time, within appropriate the six years aforesaid, to draw any surplus money not money which may be in the public treasury, and otherwise not otherwise appropriated by law, to effect the appropriated, the purposes of this act; and that he draw the to carry this same at such times, and in such sums as he act into effect. may deem most expedient.


Mr. SUMMER. I should like to remind the Senator --Mr. DOOLITTLE, With all courtesy to my honorable friend I must decline to give way, because I desire not to have the argument which I am making broken in upon. ... (approximately 8 paragraphes skipped at this point) "The Constitution says: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective number. Under that authority, Congress, after the passage of the Collamer statue, did both--apportioned both direct taxes and Representatives among the several States, including the southern as well as the northern and western States of this Union. I read from the eighth section of this act of August, 1861: `And be it further enacted, That, a direct tax of $20,000,000 be, and is hereby, annually laid upon the United States, and the same shall be, and is hereby, apportioned to the States respectively, and in manner following: To the State of Maine..................................$428,826 00 To the State of New Hampshire................... 218,462 66 Page 136 of 155

To the State of Vermont............................... 211,068 00 To the State of Massachusetts.. ................. 824,581 33 To the State of Rhode Island........................ 116,963 66 To the State of Connecticut.......................... 308,214 00 To the State of New York...........................2,608,918 66 To the State of New Jersey............................ 450,134 00 To the State of Pennsylvania.......................1,946,719 33 To the State of Delaware................................. 74,683 33 To the State of Maryland................................436,823 33 To the State of Virginia..................................937,550 66 To the State of North Carolina.......................576,194 66 To the State of South Carolina.......................363,570 66 To the State of Georgia..................................584,367 33 To the State of Alabama.................................529,313 33 To the State of Mississippi......................413,084 66 To the State of Louisiana........................385,886 66 To the State of Ohio...........................1,567,089 33 To the State of Kentucky.........................713,695 33 To the State of Tennessee........................669,498 00 To the State of Indiana..........................904,875 33 To the State of Illinois.......................1,146,551 33 To the State of Missouri.........................761,127 33 To the State of Kansas............................71,743 33 To the State of Arkansas.........................261,886 00 To the State of Michigan.........................501,763 33 To the State of Florida...........................77,522 66 To the State of Texas............................355,106 66 To the State of Iowa.............................452,088 00 To the State of Wisconsin........................519,688 66 To the State of California.......................254,538 66 To the State of Minnesota........................108,524 00 To the State of Oregon............................35,140 66 Sir, the question I put in the beginning, where are those eleven States? is answered here by Congress; I find them all "included within this Union," to use the language of the Constitution, for the purpose, of direct taxation. Every one of those eleven are found there and are taxed by name as States within the Union. Virginia as well as New York; Arkansas by the side of Michigan; Florida and Texas, by the side of Iowa and Wisconsin. Direct taxes and representation go together. Has Congress spoken upon the subject of representation? Most certainly. By an act approved the 4th of March, 1862, which by its terms was not to take effect till March 4, 1863, Congress apportioned the Representatives upon the basis that those eleven southern States were still States in the Union, with their right to representation unimpaired. By that act, modifying former acts, Congress apportioned Representatives to the several States in this Union as follows: To Alabama.......................................................7 To Arkansas......................................................2 To California....................................................3 To Connecticut...................................................4 Page 137 of 155

To Delaware......................................................1 To Florida.......................................................1 To Georgia.......................................................7 To Illinois.....................................................13 To Indiana......................................................11 To Iowa..........................................................6 To Kansas........................................................1 To Kentucky......................................................9 To Louisiana.....................................................4 To Maine.........................................................5 To Maryland......................................................5 To Massachusetts................................................10 To Michigan......................................................6 To Minnesota.....................................................2 To Mississippi...................................................5 To Missouri......................................................9 To Nevada........................................................1 To New Hampshire.................................................3 To New Jersey....................................................5 To New York.....................................................31 To North Carolina................................................8 To Ohio.........................................................19 To Oregon........................................................1 To Pennsylvania.................................................24 To Rhode Island..................................................2 To South Carolina................................................6 To Tennessee.....................................................8 To Texas.........................................................2 To Vermont.......................................................3 To Virginia......................................................8 To West Virginia.................................................3 To Wisconsin.....................................................6 That law is still in force. Under that law the present House of Representatives was chosen; under that law the present House is organized; under that law those eleven States of the South, have just as much right to representation as the other twenty-five. Whether those States are in a condition to choose Representatives, and whether they have chosen right Representatives, are questions I will discuss hereafter. I now speak only of their right to have representation under the existing law of Congress. Thus, by the action of Congress, in apportioning direct taxes and representation--those two fundamentals in republican government--the status of those eleven States as States included within this Union is declared, and acted upon. THIS IS PART OF A COURT CASE IN WHICH THE JUDGE COMMENTS ON THE STATE OF MARYLAND PAYING ITS APPORTIONED SHARE [$436,823.33], OF THE DIRECT TAX LAID DURING THE CIVIL WAR JANUARY TERM, 1893. MARYLAND REPORTS Page 138 of 155

Wailes vs. Smith, Comptroller SIDNEY I. WAILES vs. MARION DE KALB SMITH, Comptroller of the Treasury of the State of Maryland. ROBINSON J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case has been very fully argued, and the interests involved are of more than ordinary importance. At the same time, however, it does not seem to us that any great difficulties present themselves in the consideration of the several questions upon which the petitioner's right to a mandamus depends. Now, what is this case? [By an Act of Congress, approved 5th August, 1861, a direct tax of twenty millions of dollars was levied upon real property, and this tax was apportioned as prescribed by the Federal Constitution--the apportionment of this State being $436,823.33. Provision was made for the assessment and collection of this tax against the individual owners of such property, but any State was allowed to assume and pay its quota of said tax; and under this provision the State of Maryland assumed and paid into the Treasury of the United States $371,299.83, being its apportionment, less fifteen percent allowed by the Act for the cost of collection. And thus the tax against the property of her citizens was thereby satisfied and extinguished.] (Brackets supplied). Thirty years afterwards, by an Act of Congress, approved 2nd March, 1891, entitled " Ac Act to audit and pay to the several states and Territories and the District of Columbia, all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by the Act of 1861," the $371,299.83 thus paid was refunded to the State. One year after the Wailes case was argued in the State of Maryland, another case involving direct taxation went to the United States Supreme Court, Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601 (1894) A portion of Justice Fuller's written opinion is presented here which articulates, in a nutshell, the legislative intent of our founding fathers, as related to direct taxation. "The reasons for the clauses of the Constitution in respect of direct taxation are not far to seek ... The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the States, their counties, cities and towns would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of Federal Government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, would be so exercised as to leave the States at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminately, as to particular States or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made . . .

Page 139 of 155

If It Is a Federal Matter, It Is ALSO a STATE Matter Repairing the broken link between the States and Congress: Restoring state suffrage to the United States Senate.

By Aaron Bolinger & the NVCCA

Page 140 of 155

This brief introduction was designed to give state legislators an understanding of the big picture of federalism, and specifically how their state fits into it. The specific issues that can be addressed are left to the intellect of the members. Knowing how to appropriately use your influence is the core of this monograph. There is a general rule that three classes of people need constant supervision. Children, the feeble among the elderly, and politicians. State legislators are the duly-constituted supervisors of their United States Senators with an obligation to over-see federal politicians with the title Senator.

Article V of the United States Constitution reads, in part: ... that ... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate. This component of our federal legislature is woefully misunderstood both in its proper historical context and in its application in the modern political arena. The United States Senate is (supposed to be) the voice of the states in the federal government. Moreover, there is a positive prohibition on amendments in Article V that prevents states from being deprived of ... suffrage. Historically, the word suffrage means vote. As used in the Constitution, there is no possibility that such word has any other meaning. The modifier equal prefacing this suffrage implies that, as all states have the right to having two seated Senators, their vote would be twain, and equal to all others. This, part of the great compromise of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 gave each state equal voice (or vote) in the Upper House of the legislature, and voting strength based on population in the Lower House. No amendment, including the 17th, could alter this provision of Article V, unless EVERY STATE agreed to it. The misunderstanding that the 17th Amendment did, in fact, dis-assemble the right of the states to have equal suffrage in the federal legislature cannot survive even a cursory reading of the Amendment in question. It states: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. Since the states created the federal government to be a mechanical linkage between and among them, in forming this union they sought to forever preserve their place in the decisionmaking that this federal government would undertake. Perhaps the most important operative (but overlooked) word in that constitutional phrase is suffrage, because it is upon the principle of voting as representatives of the State governments themselves and doing so in harmony on matters of mutual importance that the United States Senate was created in the first place. This is not some elite club of representatives at large (the way they are currently functioning), but the very suffrage of the independent states of the union who must act in agreement on those elements of federal and international governance where their interests meet. The provision requiring the United States Senate to overwhelmingly by a 2/3 majority agree on certain subjects (as defined in the Constitution), verify this pretext that the states reserved for themselves control over the actions, the votes, of their United States Senators. Page 141 of 155

Suffrage, according to every dictionary and historic definition of the term in practice and legal usage, is simply that voting. And these United States Senators do, and must, vote to concur with their sister body the House of Representatives, on all matters involving federal legislation. In this manner, the people AND the states, have voices in the federal system. Yet the Senate is a special body of its own, that can make certain federal decisions independent of the House of Representatives such as confirming treaties (which bind our states into international agreements), executive branch principals (department heads which individuals act as agents for the states in sundry roles) and court justices (who make important decisions where the states are involved in legal actions at the federal level), etc. HISTORY OF THE 17TH AMENDMENT [The following was extracted verbatim from the United States Senate web site:]

Voters have elected their senators in the privacy of the voting booth since 1913. The framers of the Constitution, however, did not intend senators to be elected in this way, and included in Article I, section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention established the precedent for state selection. The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their tie with the national government, which would increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace. This process seemed to work well until the mid-1850s. At that time, growing hostilities in various states resulted in vacant Senate seats. In Indiana, for example, the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican party in the northern half prevented the election of any candidate, thereby leaving the Senate seat vacant for two years. This marked the beginning of many contentious battles in state legislatures, as the struggle to elect senators reflected the increasing tensions over slavery and states' rights which led to the Civil War. After the Civil War, problems in senatorial elections by the state legislatures multiplied. In one case in the late 1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton based his defense on the observation that not all states elected their senators in the same way, and presented a report that illustrated the inconsistency in state elections of senators. In response, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats. Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years. The impetus for reform began as early as 1826 , when direct election of senators was first proposed. In the 1870s, voters sent a petition to the House of Representatives for a popular election. From 1893 to 1902, momentum increased considerably. Each year during that period, a constitutional amendment to elect senators by popular vote was proposed in Congress, but the Senate fiercely resisted change, despite the frequent vacancies and disputed election results. In the mid-1890s, the Populist party incorporated the direct election of senators into its party platform, although neither the Democrats nor the Republicans paid much notice at the time. In the early 1900s, Page 142 of 155

one state initiated changes on its own. Oregon pioneered direct election and experimented with different measures over several years until it succeeded in 1907. Soon after, Nebraska followed suit and laid the foundation for other states to adopt measures reflecting the people's will. Senators who resisted reform had difficulty ignoring the growing support for direct election of senators. After the turn of the century, momentum for reform grew rapidly. William Randolph Hearst expanded his publishing empire with Cosmopolitan, and championed the cause of direct election with muckraking articles and strong advocacy of reform. Hearst hired a veteran reporter, David Graham Phillips, who wrote scathing pieces on senators, portraying them as pawns of industrialists and financiers. The pieces became a series titled "The Treason of the Senate," which appeared in several monthly issues of the magazine in 1906. These articles galvanized the public into maintaining pressure on the Senate for reform. Increasingly, senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as twenty-nine states elected senators either as nominees of their party's primary or in a general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the new senators supported measures that argued for federal legislation, but in order to achieve reform, a constitutional amendment was required. In 1911, Senator Joseph Bristow from Kansas offered a resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment. The idea also enjoyed strong support from Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct election. Eight southern senators and all Republican senators from New England, New York, and Pennsylvania opposed Senator Bristow's resolution. The Senate approved the resolution largely because of the senators who had been elected by state-initiated reforms, many of whom were serving their first term, and therefore may have been more willing to support direct election. After the Senate passed the amendment, which represented the culmination of decades of debate about the issue, the measure moved to the House of Representatives. The House initially fared no better than the Senate in its early discussions of the proposed amendment. Much wrangling characterized the debates, but in the summer of 1912 the House finally passed the amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The campaign for public support was aided by senators such as Borah and political scientist George H. Haynes, whose scholarly work on the Senate contributed greatly to passage of the amendment. Connecticut's approval gave the Seventeenth Amendment the required three-fourths majority, and it was added to the Constitution in 1913. The following year marked the first time all senatorial elections were held by popular vote. The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase "chosen by the Legislature thereof" with "elected by the people thereof." In addition, it allows the governor or executive authority of each state, if authorized by that state's legislature, to appoint a senator in the event of a vacancy, until a general election occurs. RATIFICATION OF THE 17TH AMENDMENT [Source: State Massachusetts Arizona Minnesota New York Kansas Oregon North Carolina California Date of ratification May 22, 1912 June 3, 1912 June 10, 1912 January 15, 1913 January 17, 1913 January 23, 1913 January 25, 1913 January 28, 1913 Page 143 of 155

Michigan Iowa Montana Idaho West Virginia Colorado Nevada Texas Washington Wyoming Arkansas Maine Illinois North Dakota Wisconsin Indiana New Hampshire Vermont South Dakota Oklahoma Ohio Missouri New Mexico Nebraska New Jersey Tennessee Pennsylvania Connecticut Louisiana Alabama Delaware Maryland

January 28, 1913 January 30, 1913 January 30, 1913 January 31, 1913 February 4, 1913 February 5, 1913 February 6, 1913 February 7, 1913 February 7, 1913 February 8, 1913 February 11, 1913 February 11, 1913 February 13, 1913 February 14, 1913 February 18, 1913 February 19, 1913 February 19, 1913 February 19, 1913 February 19, 1913 February 24, 1913 February 25, 1913 March 7, 1913 March 13, 1913 March 14, 1913 March 17, 1913 April 1, 1913 April 2, 1913 April 8, 1913 June 11, 1913 April 11, 2002 July 1, 2010 April 1, 2012

The following states did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment: Utah (explicitly rejected) Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi Rhode Island South Carolina Virginia If, by any stretch of the imagination, the language of the Amendment stripped equal suffrage from the states, the mere failure of ratification of even ONE of the extant states would have voided the Amendment, by virtue of the clear language of Article V. The specific rejection of Utah would be sufficient to invoke Article V in such case, had any thing pertaining to a removal of equal suffrage been involved.

Page 144 of 155

Obviously, each state retained two United States Senators, and the job description thereof, as expressed in the Articles and Sections of the Constitution pertaining thereto, were not in the least affected by the language of the 17th. Only the manner of the selection of these Senators was modified by the 17th Amendment. Respecting the modern notion of repealing the 17th Amendment to somehow restore the states to Washington, in reality such a repeal would only renew the political problems associated with having states try to select exactly unto whom to give this huge gift of federal Senatorship. CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS REQUIRE HISTORIC SOLUTIONS State legislators are in a wonderful position to actually influence federal policy on economics, treaties, Supreme Court appointments, and much more when they regain control over the VOTES (suffrage) of their United States Senators. Legislators apprised of how to exercise their influence over these Senators need look no further than themselves to have a major impact on what Washington does. Indeed it is the DUTY of state law-makers to be well versed in federal matters so that their Senators appropriately represent the interests of their respective states in Washington. History has proven that an unrestrained Congress is a worse national enemy than any terrorist cell could ever be. No foreign state has ever destroyed our money system, nor can any of them legislatively inflict injury on the liberties of our people. The only threat of tyranny from law arises from Congress who would think to pass bills eroding the liberties of Americans on one hand, or bind us into ill-conceived international treaties (that can subject Americans to international courts, erode or destroy our commerce, etc.) on the other. At this point, only the states can restore the American dollar to its previous envy-of-the-world status, and rid our people of the insidious legislation that brings our people into bondage. Moreover, the 17th Amendment need not be repealed to achieve this small miracle. Fortunately, that responsibility is not as daunting as it might seem. The Constitution installed this state branch within the federal legislature, and the wording of the 17th Amendment did not change the role of the states in this picture of governance. Senators, acting according to the will of the legislature of the state from which they hail, can impose the will of their state back into the federal system. Furthermore, the states can, by their proxy Senators, address a wide range of federal subjects, including: Unfunded mandates, Direct affirmative or negative votes upon supreme Court & executive department nominees, Direct corrective legislation appropriate for various circumstances, Direct on such subjects as economics, Direct votes on treaties, and/or call for their repeal, Address a more sane and appropriate course of participation in the United Nations organization, NATO, the WTO, and related international bodies that impact upon our military, funding, international trade, and other subjects, Etcetera.

POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. The constitution for the United States of America provides the following duties and obligations upon the United States Senate, and accordingly provides the relationship of representative suffrage of the General Assemblies of our Sister States in that federal Assembly to carry out the wishes thereof in these duties:

Page 145 of 155

To try all Impeachments.(Art 1, 3, Cl. 6) To concur on treaties (by a 2/3 margin), confirm the appointment of Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not otherwise provided for (Art II, 2, Cl. 2). In Article 1, 8, the following duties befall the Congress generally, the Senate being but one chamber thereof.
Clause 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Duty To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; * To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; ** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Page 146 of 155

* Note the word coin is used as a verb, hence the congressional economic power is limited to minting metals (silver and gold) for the primary coinage/money system of our nation. States wanting to fix another major aspect of our current financial dilemma should see the companion Issue Brief we have prepared on the subject of Federalist Economics for a detailed financial plan they could bind upon their United States Senators for introduction and subsequent passage at the Federal level. ** In another major area where the States could influence Federal policy, the literal invasion of illegal immigrants to the United States could be spotlighted by the proper binding of your states United States Senators into using this power to repel such invasion.

By properly instructing U.S. Senators, using tools such as binding resolutions directed to the United States Senators from their respective state, the states can regain leverage over a federal government run amok. (A sample of such binding resolution follows this brief.) All that is needed are state legislators courageous enough to exercise the powers they inherently possess via the articles of the Constitution. U.S. Senators can, and should, be held to account to their state for how they vote in Washington while wearing the suffrage hat of their state within the federal government. Though the 17th Amendment changed the mode of selection of these officers, their job descriptions have not changed one iota. They still represent their state, voting on its behalf, on all legislation proposed by the Congress Assembled; and they still perform the other Senate-specific duties as articulated in the Federal Constitution on subject matter of common interest to the states of our union, and as a part of the Congress, exercise all (or nearly so) common powers with their sister House in the Federal legislature. (Bills to raise money must originate in the lower House, etc.) Each state has two United States senators. Constitutionally, they were (and still are), the voice of the states in the five-tiered federalism picture (Executive, Judiciary, Congress, States, and the people themselves). As a point of departure for further research and understanding this StateSenatorial interaction, considerable detail may be found in Federalist Papers # 39, 45, 59 60, 62, 63, 64 & 68. By contrast, the U.S. House of Representatives is comprised of those elected to represent the people. The people have their voice in the House, and the States are positioned in the Senate at least that is how it is SUPPOSED to be. Common practice notwithstanding, problems can be fixed by looking at this history for the answer. The US Senate is elected by the people (following the 17th Amendment), but is still quite capable of functioning as the STATE voice in the federal system. Not even the Senators length of service was changed by the 17th it is still 6 years, and rotated so that only 1/3 of the total can be changed in any single election cycle. (This provides stability in the general government.) The selection process had to change however, because even though no state may be deprived of its equal suffrage according to Art. V of the Constitution, prior to the 17th (when state legislatures actually had to choose who to send to Washington) it was such a huge political perk to get that slot that sometimes states denied themselves suffrage when they couldnt agree on who to send. It is easy to see why this was the case. The two-party system made it inevitable. Imagine a state where Republicans control the state Senate in their assembly, and the Democrats control the House. No Republican would get the nod from House, and no Democrat could get Senate approval. Log-jams of this nature were frequent, and often a 2-year election cycle made no progress, as the leadership of the respective bodies could flip in the opposite direction. States could go absent one or both Senators for a very long time. Even in states where compromises enabled senators to be selected, wheeling and dealing corrupted the process to the degree that public confidence became significantly eroded in the state legislature and Senator both. To prevent a lack of Senators in Washington, the decision on who to send to was taken away from party politics and given to the normal election process of the people. It was a simple solution to a common (and annoying) problem. Page 147 of 155

So despite common misconceptions about the 17th Amendment, the United States Senate still has the exact same duties and obligations under the Constitution. They still: confirm the appointment of Presidentially-nominated ambassadors, court justices & executive branch officials, and confirm treaties (per Art. 2 2, cl. 2). They also try cases of impeachment (Art 1 3, cl. 6). These duties are reserved to the Senate simply because these situations and government officials in strong leadership roles impact on the states, binding them into potentially long-term affairs potentially deleterious to their general welfare. It requires 2/3 of the Senate to execute these confirmations & agreements to certify the overwhelming support of the states to be bound by these people and agreements. As shown, the states can be involved in the selection of the Supreme Court (Treasury department heads, etc.) via the Senate. When a President proposes a candidate for the bench or other official duty, states can independently investigate the candidate via their own committee structures, and make a thumbs up or thumbs down recommendation to their United States Senators on the confirmation. In all places where consent of the Senate is stipulated in the Constitution, functioning state legislatures are plugged into the federal process, as the Constitution intended. It gives the states a bit of extra work, but on behalf of the welfare of their state it is their duty to see to it. The Constitution presumed that the states would instruct their representatives to the federal Senate on their wishes. History proves that so long as the states did supervise and instruct (and hold accountable) their Senators, these Senators very well and faithfully represented the will of the state legislature in Congress. This is nothing new at all. The only thing missing in the present day is using the proper tools already at the states disposal to once again hold them accountable. Common contemporary mis-belief is that federal matters are entirely the job of the federal legislature, and most state assembly persons simply advise members of the public to contact Washington for such discussion. This can only be either evidence of misunderstanding state-federal relations, or a cop-out. Many would infer that state legislators who give a thats a federal matter response to valid localized questions or comments are doing so either 1) because they do not know the real power over Washington that they have, 2) or they are hoping to pass the buck on a political problem to avoid addressing it. The only other answer is patent laziness, and experience is that most state officials are anything but lazy. It is quite frustrating to the constituent, however, and totally unproductive (and demeaning) to the state legislator who takes that position. One can only hope the reason they do so is #1 above, as any lack of information can quickly be corrected. It remains, however, a distinct duty of the state legislatures to contact and instruct United States Senators when any federal matter is involved that has impact on their states welfare, security or long-term health. This is clearly seen by the special legislative powers of the US Senate provided in the Constitution. The public is certainly at liberty (and should) contact members of the House of Representatives for many or even most federal matters. But where the states are being bound into treaties, are being bankrupted by unfunded congressional mandates, or impacted by such things as a fraudulent medium of exchange, then it is not only the right of the states to communicate specific instructions to their United States Senators on how to handle it it is their obligation! Ipso facto, the Senators are duty-bound to obey lawful directives by the sovereign authority of their state assemblies. Otherwise, the states are not sovereign at all, but mere tentacles of the federal system a tail wagging the dog situation. A common practice in many states today is to send an endless string of resolutions to Washington, addressed to the President & the members of their congressional delegation (both House and Senate). These are found on all sorts of interesting subject matter, and represent sincere attempts to notify Washington of the will of the legislature(s) of the state(s). Such courtesy copies to the President and House although certainly meritorious are notoriously ignored. (Quite frequently, the US Senators ignore these state pleadings as well.)

Page 148 of 155

To restore their place in the federalism structure, states should do more than simply memorialize Congress with respect to implementing needed federal actions. The proper protocol is to admonish their United States Senators in a binding manner, by order of the General Assembly of the State of (x). As no state can be denied its suffrage in the Senate, and United States Senators are the voices of that suffrage, it is beyond ridiculous that state legislators do not take advantage of this unique and unquestionable power that they have to reclaim their voice in the federal legislature. Based on meetings with numerous state elected officials, it is apparent that many of them are not conversant with this power (unless they are denying it out of fear of using it, but that hardly seems the case). Some truly believe that anything deemed a federal matter must be left to federal legislators to discern and deal with on their own. Such notion is purely untrue, based on the language of the Constitution itself. States can impose themselves back into the federal system at any time they so desire. Based on this current economic dilemma, and with numerous other situations presenting themselves as problematic for the states, it is high time they do so. Perhaps a better application of this power would play out in practice by enacting a short state law (model following) that compels the attendance of the two United States Senators before a joint session of the state legislature once or twice in each year. All sense of the state matters of federal significance (at the time) would be communicated via this mechanism, and only to the Senators. Any subsequently discovered situations would be dealt with via binding resolution communicated to their Senators in Washington as warranted. In this manner, the State would make its wishes known on all important federal subject matter, and at all times the Senators would be aware of exactly how they should be voting in the interest of their State. On a side note, part of this might encourage state legislators to involve themselves much more in the selection process of these United States Senators. This is a rather simple thing to do as well and carrying with it many benefits. This is not to say there is any need to suggest repealing the 17th as that would renew the problems it solved. But each state legislator does represent a large number of citizens in their state capitol. As such, it would be quite easy to use available media (mail, press conferences near election time, e-mail, etc.) to alert the voters as to how their Senators are doing with respect to representing the common interest of the state as a whole. Certainly the ability to influence the voters about who to send to Washington is a tactic that has also been ignored entirely too long. Meanwhile Washington continues to borrow - spend - tax - repeat into infinitely higher levels of debt burdens on future generations, and for dramatically unproductive and unpopular expeditions of assorted flavors (mating habits of fruit flies to aggressive foreign wars pick a favorite). When flexing this available muscle in these two small activities, state legislators would immediately find U.S. Senators catering to them (as they rightly should). Senators would terribly fear acting in favor of special (corporate or foreign) interests over that of their state, as doing so is sure to incur the wrath of irritated state legislators who can tell significant voting blocks of the general public to remove them from office at the next election. In our modern age of rapid and targeted communication, this power is perhaps more potent now than ever. Moreover, it is a power already possessed by every state legislator in America. It requires no Constitutional Amendment or change to implement. It is available immediately if one sees a U.S. Senator who is behaving badly. Reigning in official Washington is about as easy as understanding the tools at your disposal, and then making the courageous decision to do so. Without question, economic upheaval as we are now seeing is driving more and more people to seek out answers as to why Washington would pursue such idiotic borrowing policies the same as those which created our dilemma. When the people see their state officials taking an active role in reigning in these policies, the free market will again take over with investments of their own. As you begin to understand the federalism picture of our nations economy, bear in mind the simple changes to our state thinking that will preface other reforms. First, our states must come to understand the Constitutional scope of their powers and duties. Only then can other changes be Page 149 of 155

undertaken. A model US Senate Accountability Act follows that can be easily tailored or customized for the particular needs of your state. It would implement the basic ideas contained in this introductory monograph. Is it essential? Certainly not. Simply using your influence over the voters COULD begin reigning in your states 4% of the US Senate. Even the INTRODUCTION of such a bill (with sufficiently powerful co-sponsorship to give it credibility) might result in a call from the Senators wanting to make regular (albeit non-compulsory) visits to the State House. (They would probably rather volunteer to come, than to be compelled by law to do so.) But with this situation as it is, a bit of extra muscle flexing may get the message through loud and clear, and much faster. It would also give the state a fail safe mechanism in case any Senator decides to back-slide into previous modes of behavior after the pressure abates. The corrupting influence of special interests on the U.S. Senate is not something they will seek to remove on their own, at least not for any protracted time period. That is where the state legislators come in take it out of their purview, and they will act accordingly. For many reasons it is high time the US Senate was reigned in by the states. It is also apropos that our states quit being treated as the red-headed stepchild of the federal government. After all, the states created the federal government in the first place, and the proper role for the feds is that of agent in the principle vs. agent relationship we fondly call American Federalism. That principle/agent legal concept is crucial to developing positive plans of action against everything from unfunded mandates to wealth-transfer bailouts. For now, the important thing is knowing that we are sovereign states, united via a federal government who is required to perform certain limited functions to the benefit of our united sovereigns. Plugging the states back into this system is essential if we are to straighten out our contemporary problems. The federal tail can only wag our sovereign state dogs so long as we allow it. OBJECTIONS & REBUTTALS Certainly there will be ruffled feathers over the prospects of demanding accountability in Washington. Below are a few likely objections, followed by some (perhaps witty) rebuttals to help you make the case to your colleagues. Have any states done this before? There are two types of hunters: those who tread only on public lands using well-traveled roads, and those who use a compass and hike across the ridges. The one taking the higher road brings back more game than the path-finder. The Constitution is our compass. Since the states are represented in Congress by our US Senators, it only stands to reason that we MUST provide information to our Senators if we expect them to represent us. Previous to recent times, it was taken for granted that the Senators would respect their sending state, and they did so quite admirably. Only because we have lost our way in the woods do we now need to resort to the compass to find our way back. This great constitutional experiment is still a work in progress. We might be trailblazing in that respect. The 17th Amendment corrected a political problem (bickering among parties over who to send) that often left states without Senators in Washington. We now need to correct the vacuum of Senator-to-state accountability that the 17th Amendment seemed to have caused, albeit unintentionally. The 10th Amendment says the states remain sovereign, so we can do whatever we want so long as we do not do something the Constitutional-compass specifically forbids. Holding our Senators accountable to our Assembly is perfectly reasonable, and absolutely within the scope of the rule book, including its original intent & practice until very recently. If other states dont do something like this, that is their problem, not ours. Maybe we will be blazing the path others will follow. That is bad, why?

Page 150 of 155

Didnt the 17th Amendment change the role of the states? No. The 17th Amendment did not alter Article V, nor did it change any of the duties of the Senate based on their obligation to the state that sends them to Washington. The debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the state ratification debates, Federalist Papers, and much more comprise the documents of Constitutional History and these explain the intent of the framers of the Constitution concerning federalism. This material comprises a considerable volume of information on the state-federal relationship, and is the source of well entrenched and well accepted principles of constitutional application. The manner of selecting Senators did not alter their role as suffrage in Congress for the states. They are to be our voice in the federal legislature. It is high time they started speaking for us as states, and this proposal moves the Senate back towards their proper and wellaccepted role. What if Congress retaliates against us by cutting off funding? The thought that the entire Congress would vote to disconnect a state from their desire to spend generally is laughable. If they did, it would only prove further the point that they are totally out of control, and need to be supervised better. Again, that is the job of the states via their US Senators, and this proposal would do just that at least from our states perspective. What others do is entirely their business.

Page 151 of 155

Model United States Senate Accountability Act WHEREAS, the Constitution for the United States of America, at Amendment Seventeen, specifies that United States Senators are "elected by the People" (Clause 1). Said Constitution, in Article V, further states that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate;" and WHEREAS, Nothing has altered the constitutional responsibility of the United States Senate to be the voice of the states in the federal government. Even though popularly elected following the enactment of the 17th Amendment, United States Senators are, in fact Representatives of the State Legislature of the State from which they are elected, and as such, accountable to the same for their conduct. The will of this General Assembly is to be expressed in the federal government by and through the two United States Senators elected by the People thereof. BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the General Assembly of the State of (X) that the two United States Senators from the State of (X) are forever hereafter summoned to appear before a joint session of this General Assembly each year on the (insert date and time); and be it further ENACTED, that the purpose of this joint session is to exchange information by and between the State of (X) and the United States Congress through its duly elected United States Senators; and be it further ENACTED, that a joint standing committee is hereby established consisting of 10 members of the House of Representatives and 6 members of the State Senate, and the presiding officer of each House. Such committee shall be styled the "Joint Standing Committee Pertaining to the United States Senate." Upon convening, the members of the said Committee shall appoint two co-chairs, one from each House of this General Assembly; and be it further ENACTED, that not later than thirty calendar days prior to this annual meeting the United States Senators shall provide to this Committee certified copies of their most recent calendar year voting record on all bills and resolutions on which they voted while serving in the United States Senate, certified copies of the said bills and resolutions, and copies of each bill and resolution known to be under consideration in the Congress of the United States in the immediate upcoming calendar year; and be it further ENACTED, that each United States Senator shall be eligible to speak to the Assembly to discuss the actions of the Congress of the United States as they pertain to the relationship of the several States to the Federal system, to discuss pending legislation of the United States Congress as it pertains to the same, to justify their actions and voting record as they pertain to the State of (X) and the General Assembly and citizens thereof, and to discuss other matters the Senators wish to convey to the General Assembly; and be it further ENACTED, that the Presiding Officers of both Houses of this State's General Assembly shall convey to the United States Senators copies of any and all resolutions passed by this General Assembly expressing the ideas, senses or desires of this General Assembly for introduction into the Congress of the United States. The presiding officers of both Houses of the General Assembly shall direct said United States Senators to introduce and support any such measures to benefit the General Assembly and People of the State of (X); and be it further ENACTED, that the first occasion of this annual meeting will occur not more than 90 days following the passage of this act (said date to be provided for by a subsequent resolution), and will then occur on the date and time herein provided for each year forever hereafter; and be it further

Page 152 of 155

ENACTED, that forever hereafter the Senior United States Senator shall maintain routine contact with the co-chairs of the Special Joint Committee Pertaining to the United States Senate for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of this General Assembly as it relates to legislation pending before the Congress Assembled, and treaties and appointments before the United States Senate. To the end that the General Assembly's wishes be represented in the United States Senate, the Special Joint Committee shall, from time to time, poll the members of this General Assembly to ascertain their position on pending considerations before the United States Senate, and convey the results of such polls to the Senior United States Senator from the State of (X) ; and be it further ENACTED, that failure to comply with the directives of this Act by any United States Senator shall constitute nonfeasance of office by the offending United States Senator, and upon conviction thereof in the Circuit Court located in the State Capitol of Harrisburg, said United States Senator shall immediately vacate his/her said office in the United States Senate, and such position shall be filled according to the terms and conditions of Clause 2 of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America; and be it further ENACTED, that the Joint State Standing Committee Pertaining to the United States Senate be directed to review the performance of each member of the United States Senate from the State of (X) , and to evaluate such performance and voting records to ascertain the member's compliance to his or her Oath of Office and to the terms and conditions of the Constitution for the United States of America. When the record indicates a member has introduced or voted in favor of a bill or bills determined by the committee not in conformity to the Constitution for the United States of America, the Committee shall issue a report to the General Assembly of this State signifying the same. Upon a concurrence of a majority of the members of both Houses of this State's General Assembly, the presiding officers of the Pennsylvania House and Senate shall direct the Attorney General for the State of (X) to bring quo warranto proceedings against said United States Senator. In the absence of a valid response to quo warranto, the Senator shall vacate his seat in the United States Senate, and the Attorney General shall bring criminal charges of Violation of Oath as provided for in the ______ Annotated Code, Article __, Section ____Any position created by removal from office shall be filled according to the terms and conditions of Clause 2 of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Following passage of the above Act, the wording for a Binding Resolution might include the following, directing a proper Balanced Budget Amendment to be introduced by the U.S. Senators of the given state: Model Binding Resolution on the United States Senators for the State of (X) WHEREAS, following adoption of the Constitution for the United States of America, a series of Amendments were proposed by the States eventually becoming referred to as the Bill of Rights; AND WHEREAS, among these Amendments was one that did not receive the required state votes for ratification, the text of which amounted to a Balanced Budget Amendment using the newly created and extant powers of Congress, as follows: Resolved that the general Government of the United States ought never to impose direct taxes, but where the monies arising from the duties, imposts and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have made a requisition upon the states to Assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions. And in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion together with Interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of payment prescribed by such requisition. Page 153 of 155

AND, WHEREAS the States of New York, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia included substantially similar language, expounding upon the Power of Direct Taxation found at Article 1, 2, Cl.3; and Article 1, 9, Cl. 4 in their respective Ratification Documents, suggesting and requesting such Amendment to ascertain and effect an annually balanced Federal budget and so as to limit the necessity of borrowing, and hence the compounding interest that accompanies such borrowing, and to further hold accountable to the States and people said Congress for its spending in the year such monies are spent; AND WHEREAS, the current profligate spending and borrowing habits of the Congress Assembled evinces a blatant disregard for the financial well-being of this and our Sister States. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF THE STATE OF (X) ASSEMBLED AND IN HARMONY THAT The two United States Senators from this State are hereby directed to introduce into the Senate of the United States the following Constitutional Amendment requiring an annually balanced budget, consistent with the extant power of Congress to impose an emergency Direct Tax upon the States of this Union, apportioned by voting strength in the lower House of Congress, to wit: "SECTION 1. Congress ought not raise money from borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts, duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year. In such case, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit." "SECTION 2. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, Congress shall immediately calculate each State's apportioned share of the tax based upon its number of Representatives as allotted by the Constitution, and then notify the Executive of each State of its apportioned share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury." "SECTION 3. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by the final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, and against the individual owners of such property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by January 15th of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection." AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in such case as either United States Senator from the State of (X) shall refuse or neglect to introduce and/or co-sponsor such Constitutional Amendment, and subsequently to support and vote in favor of such amendment, either in a U.S. Senatorial Committee considering the same or on the floor of the Senate when such vote shall be taken and recorded, that said Senator(s) shall be guilty of perjury (violation of their oath of office) to serve as the suffrage of this State in the United States Senate, as the voice thereof, as demanded and bound by this Resolution expressing the will of our Assembly upon them in their official capacity. Such neglect shall make said Senator(s) culpable to be tried in this State for such violation under the authority of the General Assembly, with the Attorney General of this State serving as the Prosecuting Attorney on behalf of this State. Upon conviction thereof, such Senator(s) shall immediately vacate their office, Page 154 of 155

and shall be replaced under the terms of vacancies within the United States Senate as provided for in the 17th Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Page 155 of 155