🚀 go-pugleaf

GOOD ARTICLE TO PRINT OUT...
================================================================
THE NEW AMERICAN -- March 6, 1995 Copyright 1994 -- American Opinion
Publishing, Incorporated P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913
================================================================
ARTICLE: American Opinion TITLE: Con-Con Call SUBTITLE: Beware Mike
Leavitt's "Conference of the States" AUTHOR: Don Fotheringham
================================================================ 
Utah Governor Mike Leavitt seems to think the United States Constitution
is obsolete. He has teamed up with Governor Ben  Nelson of Nebraska to
set in motion the mechanism for making  fundamental changes to our
constitutional structure. A good  deal of groundwork has already been
laid for what the two  governors have labeled a "Conference of the
States," clearly  one of the most startling and revolutionary
developments of  our time.

Governors Leavitt and Nelson are supported (if not led) by the  Council
of State Governments and the National Governors' Association,  in
cooperation with two other organizations, the National Conference  of
State Legislatures and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Inter-
governmental Relations. Through these organizations elaborate plans have
been devised in which these quasi-official groups have designated
themselves "convenors" of a major conference to be held later this year,
most likely in Philadelphia. This extraordinary affair is intended to
emulate the historic convention of 1787 that drafted  the U.S.
Constitution. But lest there be any real opposition to  the
smooth-running movement, the governors and their "convenors"  carefully
avoid referring to the Conference as a constitutional  convention
(con-con).

Decisive Opposition

For the past 200 years, efforts to call a federal convention have  been
firmly opposed by legal scholars and citizens alike. Although  a con-con
is a legal mechanism established by the Constitution, it  is an
amendatory process that cannot be limited or controlled.

In spite of assurances by Governor Leavitt that the Conference of  the
States will not be a con-con, he openly advocated one in his  first
position paper and in public statements. The Salt Lake Tribune  for
April 25, 1994 reported:

    "On Thursday, the governor unveiled a proposal to gather support 
    for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving states authority 
    equal to the federal government's. He took his plan for an informal 
    states' conference and a possible constitutional convention to the 
    Western States Summit in Phoenix. The proposal is a manifesto that 
    urges states to organize against their 'subordinate status' under 
    the current federal system."

Leavitt's speech was not well received by the audience. Here is the
reaction of one state representative, Utah's Met Johnson, as quoted  by
the Salt Lake Tribune: "Mike got all wild and weird on us with  this
constitutional convention speech in Phoenix. The Constitution  isn't
broken; we don't want to open it up.... This is about the  federal
government regulating us into oblivion, and when he talked  about that
constitutional convention stuff, he made a lot of Westerners  really
angry."

While a lot of Westerners were indeed angry and concerned, apparently no
one at the intergovernmental level objected to the governor's con-con
 plan, which is to be presented to an unsuspecting public, not as a
con-con, but as a Conference of the States. After the Western States
Summit meeting, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that "Leavitt also said
he has rewritten his position paper, deleting any reference to a
constitutional convention, which he said had been misconstrued."

Although Mike Leavitt has toned down his speeches, his carefully written
plan still comprises every ingredient needed to harness the powers of a
federal convention. The choice of language makes the Conference seem
harmless to many state legislators who have been  quick to pass
"Resolutions of Participation" that are being  introduced in one state
after another.

A constitutional convention is a meeting authorized by the several
states and comprised of delegates appointed by their legislatures  for
the purpose of considering and adopting amendments to the federal
Constitution. To avoid being presumptive concerning the role of this new
convocation, we hereby quote from the "Action Plan" of the governors:

    "A Conference of the States would enable State representatives 
    to consider, refine and adopt proposals for structural change 
    in our federal system."

So isn't that the essence of a federal convention? Essence or not,  the
organizers are quick to deny they are hosting a constitutional
convention, or even laying the groundwork for one. We agree that  their
conference is certainly not being called pursuant to Article V  of the
Constitution, which, in addition to defining the procedure  that
authorizes Congress to initiate amendments, establishes an  alternate
route (circumventing Congress) for state-initiated  amendments. Yet,
neither was the Convention of 1787 called according  to the established
rules of the day. The original 13 states ignored  the amendment process
established in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates who attended
the 1787 convention were vested with power  by their state legislatures,
power that extended far beyond their  constitutional mandate.

Power of a Free People

Records of the 1787 Convention are clear about the consolidated
authority of the states and the power the states vested in their
delegates. New Jersey's William Patterson objected to the course  the
Convention was taking and said:

    "We are met here as the deputies of 13 independent, sovereign 
    states, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty 
    and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our states 
    who have sent us here for other purposes?"

Annihilation of state sovereignty, of course, did not occur; but other
purposes most certainly did. The main point is that the 1787 Convention
possessed that power, and the delegates exercised it. Is the
consolidation  of that power being attempted again in 1995 by Governor
Leavitt and his  Conference of the States? A realistic assessment
indicates that a  convention-empowered conference is exactly what is
envisioned. But  while the product of the Convention of 1787 turned out
to be the most  nearly perfect form of government yet devised, the
result this time  could be disastrous.

But what about the fact that Article V of the Constitution requires that
two-thirds of the states apply for a convention in order for one to be
called? The Conference of the States seeks only a majority of  51
percent. Again, the organizers of the planned Conference have  obviously
done their homework. History shows that a quorum of 51  percent was the
minimum needed some 200 years ago to consider, propose,  and adopt
amendments to the federal system. Thus, our Founders met in Philadelphia
and opened the Convention on May 25, 1787 with only seven (a simple
majority) of the 13 states represented. That is precisely  the minimum
percentage wanted by the governors and convenors in the  process that is
now under way.

The name of the summit to be held this year in Philadelphia -- whether
it is called a conference, convention, convocation, assembly,
discussion,  deliberation, or whatever -- is of no consequence. But the
process by  which it is being set in motion, the formal appointment of
its delegates,  and the legal instruments that authorize it, amount to
far more than a  friendly meeting of state leaders. The organizers have
latched onto a  principle that is not well known by our citizenry: the
consolidation  and mobilization of the power inherent in a free people.
Congress  reaffirmed this principle in an extensive joint resolution in
1935: "The government of the United States is not a concession to the
people  from some one higher up. It is the creation and the creature of
the  people themselves, as absolute sovereigns." This concentration of
collective right, formally assembled, portends the most serious of
consequences.

Those inherent powers of the people when consolidated are superior in
every respect to government. In 1911 Senator Weldon Heyburn of Idaho
sounded a warning while debating the matter on the floor of the Senate:
"When the people of the United States meet in a constitutional
convention  there is no power to limit their action. They are greater
than the  Constitution, and they can repeal the provision that limits
the right  of amendment. They can repeal every section of it because
they are the  peers of the people who made it."

"It is not a constitutional convention," Governor Leavitt now insists.
But his assurance inspires little confidence after one reads the
position  papers of the intergovernmental groups he belongs to. In order
to  demonstrate the audacious nature of their "Action Plan for Balanced
Competition in the Federal System," we print here their own summary  of
the grand scheme, with bracketed numbers and UPPERCASE type added  for
emphasis:

    [1.] WE PROPOSE A PROCESS THAT WOULD CONSOLIDATE and focus 
    STATE POWER. This process would culminate in an historic 
    event called a Conference of the States.

    [2.] IN EACH STATE LEGISLATURE, A RESOLUTION of Participation 
    in a Conference of the States WILL BE FILED during the 1995 
    legislative session. THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT 
    OF A bi-partisan, five-person DELEGATION of legislators and the 
    governor from each state to attend.

    [3.] WHEN A significant MAJORITY OF THE STATES HAVE PASSED 
    RESOLUTIONS of Participation, A LEGAL ENTITY called the 
    Conference of the States, Inc., WILL BE FORMED BY THE DELEGATES 
    FROM EACH STATE, acting as incorporators. The incorporators will 
    also organize and establish rules, assuring that EACH STATE 
    delegation RECEIVES ONE VOTE.

    [4.] The actual Conference of the States would then be held, 
    perhaps in a city with historic significance such as Philadelphia 
    or Annapolis. AT THE CONFERENCE, DELEGATIONS WOULD CONSIDER, 
    REFINE AND VOTE ON ways of CORRECTING the imbalance in THE FEDERAL 
    SYSTEM. ANY ITEM RECEIVING THE SUPPORT OF THE STATE DELEGATIONS 
    WOULD BECOME part of a new instrument of American democracy called 
    a States' Petition. The States' Petition would be, in effect, THE 
    action PLAN EMERGING FROM THE CONFERENCE OF THE STATES. It WOULD 
    CONSTITUTE THE HIGHEST FORM OF FORMAL COMMUNICATION
    BETWEEN THE STATES AND CONGRESS. A States' Petition GAINS ITS
    AUTHORITY FROM THE SHEER POWER OF THE PROCESS the states follow to
    initiate it. IT IS A PROCEDURE OUTSIDE THE traditional
    CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS, and it would have no force of law or
    binding authority. But it must not be ignored or taken lightly
    because it symbolizes to the states a test of their relevance.
    Ignoring the petitions would signal to the states an intolerable
    arrogance on the part of Congress.

    [5.] The States' Petition WOULD THEN BE TAKEN BACK TO THE STATES 
    FOR APPROVAL BY EACH STATE LEGISLATURE. If the Petition included 
    CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, those amendments would REQUIRE
    APPROVAL BY A SUPER-MAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES to
    continue as a part of the States' Petition.

    [6.] Armed with the final States' Petition, the representatives 
    of each state would then gather in Washington to present the 
    Petition and formally request that Congress respond.

Convention Call

A reading of the bold type tells it all: This whole effort, labeled a
"conference," is in reality a call for a constitutional convention. The
"Action Plan" does indeed circumvent the constitutional process  of
Article V, but it very cleverly incorporates every ingredient  necessary
for a free people to change their form of government. Although in
defiance of existing constitutional procedures, the  organizers apply a
process based on the principle embodied in  Paragraph 1: A free people
are sovereign, and when acting through  their state they can consolidate
that power and reform their  government. This principle was inherent in
the founding of our  nation and is obviously well understood by the
designers of this  dangerous plan.

Disclaimers woven carefully into the Action Plan, such as the assurance
in Paragraph 4 that "it would have no force of law," are unwoven by the
fact that a majority of the states are required to pass formal
legislation,  as in Paragraph 2, authorizing the meeting and appointing
official  delegates to attend the affair. There would be no need for
legal  instruments from the states if a delegation of legislators wanted
to  attend a conference that "would have no force of law."

We could sympathize with enthusiastic public servants who seek only  to
build the attendance of their meetings. But in this program there  will
be no meeting at all until (or unless) a majority attends, as  required
in Paragraph 3. But if there were no pervasive reason for a  majority to
be there, the conference date could be set now, immediately. There would
be no need to wait until 26 states are locked in. If only 49  percent
attended, who would really care?

But the organizers do care, and it is of crucial importance to them
because that majority will certify the power they seek in their
convention, just as stated by South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney
at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "The assent of a given number
of the States shall be sufficient to invest them and to bind the Union
as fully as if they had been confirmed by the Legislatures of all the
States."

Paragraph 3 embodies another important precedent set by the first
Convention: The establishment of a one-state, one-vote rule.

In Paragraph 4 we find the convening of a deliberative body, the core
element of a convention, authorized to consider, refine, and vote on
ways of "correcting" the federal system. System corrections are made
only at the convention level. Here the organizers are referring to the
process of making fundamental, structural, constitutional changes in the
federal system. As Paragraph 4 states, virtually all of the position
 papers of this movement refer to "correcting the imbalance in the
federal  system."

Violations by the federal government require nothing more than
enforcement. States can assist in this enforcement by refusing to accept
federal funding  of unconstitutional programs and by refusing to
implement unconstitutional  unfunded mandates. But structural problems
in the federal system, if they  exist, can be corrected only by
amendment, and, of course, that is what  the Conference of the States is
all about. In essence, the organizers'  plan adheres to the Article V
convention role of "proposing amendments."  But their creation of a "new
instrument," which they call a "States'  Petition," is nothing more than
the final document produced by the  convention (that is, the
"conference"). They modestly grant that their  petition is "the highest
form of formal communication between the states  and Congress." Yet if
the scheme is actually carried out and amendments  are adopted, it would
be far more than a mere "communication." It would  be the highest form
of sovereign power that could be exercised by the  states over Congress
and over the entire federal government.

Document of Amendments

What the organizers call a States' Petition will in reality be the
instrument that contains the amendments to be added to the Constitution.
It is difficult to find any reason for contriving a new term for this
document except to imply that "there ain't nobody here but just us
petitioners." Paragraph 5, in essence, defines the ratification process.
The certified document of amendments (or their States' Petition) is to
be sent to the states for approval by a super-majority. If acting under
Article V they would need the approval of three-fourths of the states.
But then, inasmuch as this whole promotion relies on brass and audacity,
 the organizers would likely settle for whatever number of states seem
inclined to ratify. In the previous constitution (the Articles of
Confederation) a ratification of amendments was required by all 13 of
the states. A precedent was set, however, when the Convention lowered
the necessary ratification from 13 to nine states (three-fourths of the
states).

Madison's notes on the 1787 Convention express the consternation of at
least one delegate who opposed reducing the number of states needed for
ratification:

    "Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry urged the indecency and pernicious tendency 
    of dissolving in so slight a manner, the solemn obligations of the 
    articles of confederation. If nine out of thirteen can dissolve the 
    compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new 
    one hereafter."

Perhaps the organizers hope that those state legislators who, for the
past 20 years, have steadfastly refused to call a convention, may not
recognize the serious implications of this new effort. One way to
obfuscate its convention-like process would be for the con-con advocates
 to use a lot of newly contrived terms -- terms which appear harmless to
 starry-eyed state legislators, but which are clear to the
intergovernmental  cabal pushing through the process.

Right now it is critically important to the Conference task force to get
the Resolutions of Participation passed in at least 26 states as quickly
as possible. It looks very much like a high-pressure power  game because
the resolutions are being thrown through statehouses like hardballs.
Most are being passed on voice votes, are given little or  no committee
hearing, and are being steamrolled through the voting chambers.

The bodies of all the Resolutions of Participation are the same for  all
states; they typically begin with the following statement of  purpose:

    "Calling for a Conference of the States to be promoted and convened 
    by the Council of State Governments for the purpose of restoring 
    balance in the federal system and supporting [name of state]'s 
    participation in such a Conference."

Shallow Understanding

Do the American people understand that their sovereign powers are set to
be consolidated in an instrument that authorizes a private
intergovernmental group to tinker with our federal system? And are  the
governors and state legislators so flattered by the national  attention
beckoned by this summit that they will vote for a Resolution  of
Participation without challenging it? Has no American official  asked
why he should vote for a measure that empowers a private group  to serve
as convenors of any kind of official meeting? Has no one  questioned the
provision that the Conference must be legally  incorporated? Will 7,400
state legislators (or even half of that  number) vote in favor of a
measure that includes a clause stipulating  that "at least twenty-six
legislatures adopt this resolution without  amendment"?

A vested interest in this measure runs rather conspicuously in the
legislative leaders who have appointed themselves a seat at the
Conference before the bills have even been introduced. Little do  they
comprehend the price our nation will pay if those short-sighted  state
legislators -- and their pride-smitten governors -- think they  can fill
the seats of Washington, Madison, or Hamilton at Independence  Hall in
Philadelphia.

Paragraph 6 is pure fluff. There is no need for a formal ceremony to
present ratified amendments to Congress. A long-established rule holds
that an amendment goes into effect on the day it is ratified by the
legislature of the last necessary state. Two-hundred and fifty delegates
 need not appear in Washington and cower before Congress to obtain its
acceptance of constitutional amendments that originate through the
consolidated force of the states.

Considerable ingenuity has gone into selling this affair to the states.
Those who want structural change in our system have positioned
themselves  so that they appear to be rallying around the banner of the
Tenth Amendment. A virtual explosion of articles, editorials, and voices
in praise of the  Tenth Amendment have emanated from every clime and
every persuasion. Establishment writers from George Will to David Broder
have addressed  the subject like tried and true "conservatives." Even
President Clinton  has joined in with the Tenth Amendment chorus.

Either by seizing the moment or by creating it, the Conference promoters
 have obtained an all-American launching pad for their upcoming
extravaganza. To many Western leaders the Tenth Amendment means getting
the federal  government out of their pockets and off their backs, as
well it should. But in the East and North, where welfare-state programs
abound, the Tenth  Amendment is often used as an argument for having the
federal government  pay for its unconstitutional mandates. In the South
it often means the  restoration of states' rights. Such multi-purpose
meanings of the Tenth  Amendment are facilitated by repetitious
reference to a patently false  notion that "imbalance" in the
state-federal relationship is a terminal  illness that afflicts our
nation.

Restoring "Balance"

At a recent meeting of the Council of State Governments, Governor Mike
Leavitt declared:

    "Balance will only be restored in the way intended by Madison, 
    Jefferson, and Hamilton when states take the initiative. As state 
    leaders, with our allies in local governments, we must step up to 
    our constitutional obligation and compete for power in the federal 
    system. States have a place at the constitutional table. It is a 
    proper role -- in fact the obligation and stewardship -- of states 
    to be jealous and protective of their role and to fight for
balance."

Surely Mr. Leavitt realizes that state and federal powers are purposely
out of balance -- and that the balance is tilted heavily in favor of the
 states -- because our Founding Fathers planned it that way. The
profound  work of the Convention of 1787 gave only a few specified
powers to the  federal government, meaning that infinitely innumerable
rights, powers,  and privileges of the people remained at the state
level. The United  States Constitution, in its purest form, exemplifies
the greatest  imbalance in the history of human governance. Before the
Constitution  was ratified, Madison affirmed this planned imbalance in
the state- federal relationship in The Federalist Papers, #45:

    "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal 
    government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the 
    State governments are numerous and indefinite."

The Conference of the States meets every requirement for a
constitutional  convention even though it has not been called pursuant
to Article V of  the Constitution. It would have the legal force of a
free people if its  proposals were adopted. It would make no difference
whether Congress  approved or not, since the whole people are superior
to all institutions  of government and have authority over them.

But should the Conference of the States actually get under way and take
on the Constitution, it is hard to know what this constitutional
powerhouse would actually do. After initially coming out for a strong
state role, Leavitt backed off from that position, as noted in the April
25,1994 Salt Lake Tribune: "Explaining that he had 'migrated
ideologically' from a position of state primacy, Leavitt said he now can
'more fully appreciate the need for a federal government role' in areas
such as environment, air quality, public lands and rivers."

Now that the wheels are set in motion for hundreds of state legislators
to convene for the stated purpose of correcting the federal "imbalance,"
 which cause will Leavitt embrace? Will he champion an increase or a
decrease in federal powers? Please bear in mind that all federal powers
are enumerated in the Constitution: Congress has 26 powers, the
President  has six, and the Supreme Court has only three.

So if the Conference takes powers from Washington, which of the
enumerated (constitutional) powers will it take? Will the states  take
power over interstate commerce, the postal service, or the  roads that
connect the postal system? Will they take from Congress  the power to
coin money and regulate its value? Will the states  deprive the federal
government of the power to borrow money or to  collect taxes? Is it
likely that the states will take over the power  to declare war and to
raise and support armies? Will the states  conduct foreign affairs, take
command of the military forces, or  assume the veto powers of the
President?

These are vital questions, because -- beyond these areas -- the  federal
government has precious few powers. If the Conference is  intent on
making long-term structural change in the state-federal  relationship,
then it must either reduce or increase federal powers.

Although Governor Leavitt offers only vague ideas on "restoring balance"
 and the kind of changes he envisions for the Constitution, it is not
difficult to understand the kind of structural changes advocated by  the
Council of State Governments. In 1989, for example, it endorsed amending
the Tenth Amendment as follows: "Whether a power is one reserved to the
states or to the people shall be decided by the Courts."

This incredible proposal, the transfer of state power to the federal
court system, should sound an alarm to any legislator contemplating a
Conference of the States hosted by the Council of State Governments or
by anyone else at this perilous time in our history.

Judging by the motivation of various state leaders, the Conference
organizers really don't want to assume any of the proper functions  of
the federal system. Logically then, they must want to formalize  the
unauthorized powers -- that is, they must want to certify the
unconstitutional powers of government, both state and federal. They need
a convention to do that. They need Resolutions of Participation and
state-certified delegates to do that. They need the powers (pretended or
otherwise) of a sovereign people to do that.

On the other hand, if the true goal of the organizers is to strip the
federal government of its unauthorized powers, then a convention-
empowered Conference of the States is not necessary. Accordingly,  the
resolutions being passed in the states have one main purpose and  one
only: to amend the Constitution to legalize that which is now
unconstitutional; to usurp the undelegated powers of the people and
delegate them to government.

The real motivation behind the Conference of the States is the very
opposite of the avowed purpose, otherwise no high powered convocation
would be needed. The states could announce their assertion of the  Tenth
Amendment in a telephone conference call, and divest themselves  of
federal usurpations by engaging only in those state-federal activities
for which there is constitutional authority. The states, whether they
meet or not, already possess the power to cast aside the
unconstitutional  shackles of the federal government. All the states
need do to escape  federal oppression is to send the federal checks back
to Washington with  the following explanation:

    "We respectfully return checks paid out of the federal treasury for 
    activities that the federal government has no constitutional 
    authority to engage in or to impose upon the states as set forth 
    in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

Delegates from many states are signing on with the Conference because
the federal government has mandated programs without providing the
funding. Their intentions are quite clear: They want amendments that
will force Uncle Sam to pay for their programs relating to welfare,  the
environment, health care, highways, land management, public school
subsidies, poverty programs, housing, senior citizens, downtown parking,
 etc. Other than that, of course, they want the federal government to
leave the states alone. Never mind that the mandates themselves should
be eliminated.

If held, the Conference would likely adopt amendments that would make
legal that which is now unconstitutional. Many states would probably
agree to increase the power of the federal government by insisting  that
the federal government fund the programs it mandates.

Governor Mike Leavitt obviously realizes he made a tactical error in
openly calling for a constitutional convention last year. But his
ostensible retreat from that unpopular proposal, his mollification of
those governors who want federal money for their own welfare-state
programs, and his "ideological migration" in support of a greater  role
for the federal government, exemplify the consummate politician.

Insider Con

But these are not the Governor's first "migrations." In 1993 and 1994 he
was one of eight state executives who participated in the National
Education Goals Panel which helped compose the infamous Goals 2000. This
is the program which has radically accelerated the unconstitutional
federalization of American education. Was the governor ignorant of his
role in violation of the Tenth Amendment when he handed our children
over to the feds? Is he really the anguished tribune of the Tenth
Amendment, or is he instead a political opportunist, duly flattered  and
urged on by the intergovernmental crowd that has long sought radical
changes in our form of government? The Utah governor has found a warm
and willing reception among those who, since the 1960s, have worked to
abolish the states and to establish in their place a federally managed
regional government.

Leavitt exults that public sentiment is growing for the big summit at
Philadelphia, but we disagree. On the contrary, media sentiment is
growing. Or perhaps better stated, the managers of mass media see a
perfect forum of pigeons preparing the way for their agenda. Editors and
writers who have spent their lives scoffing at the Constitution  are
playing this game with all they can muster. The pages of our  liberal
papers are brim with flag-waving commentary on the "rebirth  of
America," and the "new role" of the states as masters of the federal
monster. Cartoonists are outdoing themselves with the big foot of Uncle
Sam shown as being thwarted by a sword-swinging little state. But the
question persists: Why have the champions of big government suddenly
discovered the Tenth Amendment?

We offer this answer: Because the call for the convention-empowered
Conference conveniently sidesteps Article V, and the only final judge of
the Conference's actions will be the people themselves. If the American
people can be carried away in a false euphoria over this enormous fraud,
they will ratify amendments that will tear apart  the very fabric of
republican government.

For the most part, Americans do not comprehend the constitutional  role
of their government or their responsibilities regarding it. Polls taken
in recent years indicate an appalling ignorance of our  system among the
great majority of Americans. According to a national  survey sponsored
by the Hearst Corporation in 1987 (the bicentennial  year of the U.S.
Constitution), 45 percent of the respondents mistakenly  believed that
the Marxist principle, "From each according to his ability,  to each
according to his need," is found in the U.S. Constitution, 49  percent
mistakenly believed that the President can "suspend the  Constitution in
time of war or national emergency," and 75 percent  mistakenly believed
that the Constitution guarantees "a free public  education through high
school."

The Conference of the States is most emphatically not a proposal of  the
people; it is a highly sophisticated, well-financed production  that is
being sold to state officials on a false premise and a deceitful
promise.

Our immediate concern centers on the Resolutions of Participation being
rushed through the statehouses of America. Every effort must be made to
block them. Our nation's best informed citizens need to voice their
opposition loudly and clearly. Governors and legislators who understand
the Constitution and know it is not flawed must be willing to speak out in
opposition to this elaborate plan to alter it. We must not permit the
calling of a state-authorized Conference imbued with federal convention
powers at this point in our history. 

END OF MAIN TEXT -- SIDEBAR FOLLOWS

================================================================

Comparing the Conventions

The following side-by-side comparison of state-originated alterations in
the federal government shows the purposes and procedures of the proposed
1995 Conference of the States and the historic Constitutional Convention
of 1787.

-- 1995 -- Conference of the States -- 1787 -- Constitutional Convention

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- THE PROBLEM: Discord in the state/federal relationship and
excessive federal power.

1787 -- THE PROBLEM: Disunity between the states and insufficient
federal enforcement power.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- PURPOSE: To consider and to propose changes in the state-
federal relationship.

1787 -- PURPOSE: To consider and to propose changes in the state-
federal relationship.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- CONSIDERATIONS: Structural and statutory changes.

1787 -- CONSIDERATIONS: Structural changes only.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- TYPE OF CONVOCATION: A deliberative body comprised of  appointed
delegates.

1787 -- TYPE OF CONVOCATION: A deliberative body comprised of  appointed
deputies.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- Conference authorized by formal resolutions of a majority  of
the states.

1787 -- Convention authorized by formal resolutions of a majority  of
the states.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- The states exceed their mandate under Article V and convene  and
adopt amendments without the consent of Congress.

1787 -- The states exceed their mandate in the Articles of Confederation
and adopt a new form of government without the  consent of the
Continental Congress.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- Delegates appointed by the state legislatures.

1787 -- Deputies appointed by the state legislatures.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- A quorum to be comprised of 26 states (a simple majority).

1787 -- A quorum to be comprised of seven states (a simple majority).

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- The Conference elects its own officers, organizes its
committees, and makes its own rules and agenda.

1787 -- The convention elects its own officers, organizes its
committees, and makes its own rules and agenda.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- Conference proposals are sent directly to the states.

1787 -- Convention proposals are presented to the Continental Congress.

------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 -- Amendment approval by a super-majority of the states.

1787 -- Amendment ratification by three-fourths of the states.

------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF SIDEBAR

================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- March 6, 1995 Copyright 1994 -- American Opinion
Publishing, Incorporated P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913
SUBSCRIPTIONS: $39.00/year (26 issues)