Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact

Constitutional Convention & Conference of States


The following consists of:

1) TWO-PAGE OPEN LETTER OF RESPONSE TO GOVERNOR LEAVITT regarding his unwillingness to bring both sides of the issues to the table - publicly - to allow Americans and elected officials the opportunity to make their own informed decisions on important questions:

2) FOUR-PAGE ADDENDUM TO THE LETTER RE: Facts evidencing inconsistencies, deceit, lies involving promotion of COS. Excerpts from:

The addendum also includes: Alternative solutions to Conference of States which will re-establish States’ Rights, God-given sovereignty of the people, and stop / reverse Federal encroachment. Submitted by: Council on Domestic Relations

Please read the information. Copy. Share with friends, family, associates, organizations, groups, talk shows, etc... and most importantly - your state senator and representative.

LEGISLATORS: Please share with your colleagues. If your state has passed the resolution of participation, please introduce legislation to rescind.

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GUIDE OUR EFFORTS TO KEEP HER FREE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OPEN LETTER TO:   Governor Michael O. Leavitt July 16, 1995
State of Utah Office of the Governor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Governor Leavitt:

Thank you for your letter of June 29, 1995 in which you "respectfully declined" our invitation to publicly debate issues relating to your planned COS (Conference of States). Since we are not able to express our concerns with you personally or publicly our response will be personal and public. The issues we wished to discuss are important and deserve a full airing before the American people to enable them to make informed decisions... issues which gravely concern several million grassroots Americans who have seriously, diligently examined the COS' proposed agenda along with hundreds of pages of documents.

Our hope in requesting an open conversation, Governor, was that we would discover we are all on common ground, desirous of the same outcome and could find a way to work together toward the goal of truly restoring Constitutional government to America - a Republic not a democracy - the autonomy of the states and the unalienable God-given sovereignty of the people as secured by our Constitution.

You stated that you're " ...not interested in confrontation, grandstanding or putting on a show for the media... ", but rather in "creating a process that gives states a fighting chance to restore the authority and protections we have lost". Your attempt to trivialize the fears of informed Americans with a statement such as this is unconscionable. You have ACCESS to major national and local radio, television and newspapers, as well as our elected officials from state governors and legislators to mayors and county supervisors. You have FUNDING and other RESOURCES from multi-national corporations (such as Chevron, Texaco and Mobile Oil), and SUPPORT from many political organizations whose activities and agendas are incorporating America into a system of global governance against the will - and without the knowledge of most - of the people you purport to represent.

In other words, you have the ear of tens of millions of uninformed Americans via the media (which no longer includes truth in its reporting of the news) and thousands of our elected officials via political organizations. You've been out in front promoting your plan, on the one hand declaring that the ground swell of citizen support is growing and on the other lamenting the unexpected opposition.

Which is it, Governor? We suggest the opposition was unexpected because the first eight or ten states passed the empowering resolution through so quickly - no public hearings, no information to our legislators - just a quick voice vote before their constituents knew anything about it - a little "arm twisting and sticking necks out by promising memberships in the CSG" to get the votes. (One would think those tactics would embarrass you.)

When previously uninformed American citizens and state legislators see the documentation presented by grassroots networkers they join the ranks of the informed opposition. Now, it certainly leaves room for questions when you are unwilling to bring both sides of the issues to the table to allow for close public scrutiny. We've made several futile attempts to bring out our concerns publicly on C-Span, where you've appeared on several occasions. It would seem therefore that you are a publicity seeker when you can discuss the COS with COS-friendly reporters while we work behind the scenes to protect our Constitution.

Our concerns have not had media attention. The journalists prefer to cast aspersions, painting a picture of us as - in the words of your assistant, LaVarr Webb - "right-wing radical whackos". In fact, to make the point, we're enclosing herewith an editorial which appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Monday (7-10-95) titled Joe McCarthy's Children, which states in part:

"We read that a conference that was being billed as a 'town meeting' for state government leaders, scheduled for Philadelphia this October, has been scuttled because of fears abroad in the land that it might be the beginning of a plot to rob Americans of basic rights... even subject them to ‘One World government’. This despite the conference's express intent, which according to Mike Leavitt, the Republican governor of conservative Utah, was to find ways to enhance not some global octopus, but state government."

The editorial went on to label COS opponents as,

"....The gun-toting, government-hating, hate-spewing extremists... the ones giving off a whiff of impending Nazism. Not the other way around."

Interestingly, this article comes from the city chosen as the meeting place of the COS where the members of the City Council passed a resolution (13-0) urging the state legislature NOT to pass the empowering resolution because of "concerns of convening the Conference of the States into a Constitutional Convention". Given that 11 of the 13 members are liberal democrats they hardly fit the description of "right-wing radicals", do they?

You said in your letter that, "Because of the opposition to the formal resolution, the Steering Committee is revisiting that issue. It is the end result that is important here, not how we get to it". You went on to say you aren't interested in debating Senator Duke regarding the resolution process; that if the process is unworkable you're willing to look at alternatives and the process is much less important than the ultimate result of increased state authority.

We submit to you, Governor, that the process was/is an issue given the COS' proposed agenda for "long term fundamental structural change". In the past you steadfastly refused to consider alternatives and only now that twenty-seven states have defeated the resolution (or let it die at session end) are you willing to look at alternatives. In fact, in a phone conversation with Senator Duke when he urged you to drop the resolution you adamantly refused saying that you "need that power" [empowered delegates]. Further, you assured him your intent was not a Constitutional Convention but you could not speak for the other delegates.

We're not so sure you really intend to give up on the resolutions either. In late May, at an ALEC meeting, you told conservative legislators we must "sell this to 7500 legislators" and you and Governor Nelson both are being seen and heard often (recently) pushing your COS. Many of the states didn't kill the resolution, so if you pull enough power, money and other resources together - and sell, sell, sell - the resolution could quickly be revived in early '96.

To be sure there is no misunderstanding of the position of Americans and many legislators who have opposed the COS, our concerns are not only the process but the agenda as well. You made a statement in your May 17th, '94 position paper that our government is "old-fashioned, out dated, not suited for the fast paced, high tech, 21st century global marketplace". How many Americans do you think give a damn about the "global marketplace", Governor?, when we all know that the only people benefitting are the executives of the multi-national corporations and the International Bankers.

American workers are losing jobs as the multi-nationals move to other countries to take advantage of the near slave labor they can hire. In the great "Citistate Region of Philadelphia" [Region III], since just last week, the newspapers reported over 8,000 jobs were lost from mergers, take-overs and closings. America is rich in natural resources; there are enough people to buy products of American manufacturers and producers of goods and services; enough farms to produce enough food to feed Americans.

What America needs, Governor Leavitt, is a grand dose of Nationalism, repeal of all laws implementing the federal regions - Regionalism - and elected officials who keep their oath to defend and protect the Constitution for the United States of America.

To help alleviate your bewilderment at the unexpected opposition, the following addendum to this letter will give some examples of why informed Americans and legislators don't want your COS to take place. We don't believe our Constitution should be amended - merely adhered to. In the addendum we'll give a suggested alternative solution to the problem on which we all agree - a federal government out of control.


Jackie Patru
Nat'l co-Director
Council on Domestic Relations

Addendum to: Letter to Governor Michael Leavitt (7-16-95)
from Council on Domestic Relations
Re: Conference of States Public Debate

1) The empowering resolution calls for 26 states to pass the resolution in order for the COS to convene. In many interviews both you and Governor Nelson have been quoted as saying the COS won't be held until 34 states sign on - the magic number required to petition Congress for an Article V Constitutional Convention (con-con).

2) You've repeatedly said you don't want a con-con because it's dangerous, yet you were quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune (5-25-94) as having revealed your plan for a COS and a "possible constitutional convention". Later, you denied saying it. [We have the Tribune article in question] You've made repeated references to the first COS in Annapolis in 1786 which led to a con-con in Philadelphia in 1787 and a total restructuring of our form of government. Your agenda proposes "long term fundamental structural change". Structural change could not be interpreted to mean anything other than a change in our Constitution - or worse yet, a possible re-write.

3) You, Governor Nelson and Governor Allen have all referred to the proposed amendments to our Constitution. You have lamented the fact that in matters of sovereignty disputes the courts find for the federal government the majority of the time, then you propose adding a sentence to our 10th Amendment giving power to the courts in disputed matters of sovereignty between the states and the federal government. You propose changing Article V to make it easier to amend the Constitution and then you offer a brand new amendment - one which would totally eliminate the 10th Amendment, to wit: If 3/4 of the states didn't like a federal mandate they could pass a resolution to have Congress repeal it... if 2/3 of Congress didn't override it the bill would be repealed. You're proposing giving more/total power to the federal government.

4) You've repeatedly said the COS cannot become an Article V con-con. Hogwash! and you surely know it or you wouldn't have been so adamant about the resolution. According to Corpus Juris Secundum 16, when delegates are officially empowered as your resolution would have done, they take on the power of the people and can disregard any limits placed on them by Congress, state legislatures or the resolution itself. The delegates of 34 or more states at a COS, representing the people of their state, could pass a resolution petitioning Congress to convene a con-con.

With a congressional delegation present, which you and Newt Gingrich both confirmed would happen, the delegation - representing the U.S. Congress - could convene a convention then and there. If there were 38 states represented, the number required to ratify amendments (or a totally new constitution), the entire process could take place in one non-stop session.

Lies seem to surround the promotion of the COS - i.e., this year's president of CSG, Missouri Governor Carnahan, lied to state legislators, telling them any proposed amendment must be ratified by 38 legislatures. Under Article V, legislatures can be bypassed in favor of ratifying conventions.

5) You claim the COS is your plan being supported by the CSG (Council of State Governments) and ACIR (Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations); however, "your"proposed amendments were published in an ACIR/CSG paper in 1989 - before you ever ran for Governor.

The CSG is a private, international organization funded originally with Rockefeller money through the Spelman Fund (see CSG's Book of the States Volume I - 1935) and currently receives millions of dollars from states' dues - our tax dollars. As early as 1935 the CSG had already called for gun control and the creation of 10 REGIONS for America. Today, America has 10 Federal Regions from which the federal government controls our money and therefore our states, counties, townships and municipalities. (You live in Region VIII, Governor) The money from the block grants coming into the states is fed into the Federal Regional Planning Commissions, HUD, HEW, EPA, departments of Labor, Commerce, etc., which in turn doles it out to our local governments in return for their "obedience" in passing whatever laws and ordinances the federal planners dictate. If they do not comply, money is withheld until they do so.

All states are in the process, via Governors' executive orders and state laws (drafted by the ACIR) being passed by careless or co-opted legislators, of merging and/or eliminating municipalities, townships and counties while weakening the law-making powers of the legislative branch. Regionalism is destroying our elective, representative form of government in favor of appointed bureaucrats and "planners" under regional governance. When the leaders in Congress talk about devolving powers back to the states - don't you believe it. The power and the money will be "devolved", not to state legislators (our elected officials) but to the federally appointed planners and planning commissions.

To reiterate, the CSG (and later with the ACIR) has been promoting this United Nations Regionalism Plan since 1935. (see 1967 UN Publication - sales No.: 67. IV. 5.) Senator Bob Kerrey, Nebraska, when asked by journalist, Trish Katsen, to explain the statement he made on C-Span that by the year 2012 there would be no federal government, reportedly said there will be no need for the federal government because power is being devolved back to the states. Does that mean our national leaders would become international leaders under the seat of Governance from the U.N.? We believe that's exactly what it means. Our federal government was created by we, the people and does not have the power to disband itself.

Another name for Regionalism is "Metro Government". The United Nations report (1967) titled Planning of Metropolitan Areas and New Towns lays out a blueprint for regionalizing the world, including the sovereign states of the united States of America. And just hot off the press is the United Nations Report of the Commission on Global Governance celebrating its 50th anniversary (October 24th, the same date you will hold your Federalism Summit in Ohio - which brings up a question... Why did you change the name from COS to Federalism Summit, when according to your action plan they mean one and the same?).

To indicate the progress being made toward world regionalism, here are a few quotes from the U.N.'s new report: {all emphasis ours}

"REGIONALISM - The UN must prepare for a time when regionalism becomes more ascendant world-wide, and even help the process along. It is committed to doing so; the Secretary-General has called repeatedly for a strengthening of regionalism in global governance, in development no less than in peace and security."

- another -

"REGIONALISM and GLOBAL GOVERNANCE - The development of regionalism cannot be isolated from global institutions. Affecting each other in many ways, these groups should be linked in a dynamic process of interaction. Regional arrangements have the potential to complement and contribute to GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, but may not produce a positive outcome automatically." (Is this the 'experimentation' to which your COS reports refer?)
"The development of global governance is part of the evolution of human efforts to organize life on the planet, and that process will always be going on. Our work is no more than a transit stop on that journey. We do not presume to offer a blueprint for all time. But we are convinced that it is time for the world to move on from the designs evolved over the centuries and given new form in the establishment of the United Nations nearly fifty years ago. We are in a time that demands freshness and innovation in global governance."

- one more -

"In the final chapter of this report, we draw attention to what has been a pre-eminent strand in the thinking of the Commission: the world's need for enlightened leadership that can inspire people to acknowledge their responsibilities to each other, and to future generations. . . Notwithstanding the drawbacks of nationalism, however, the history of even this century encourages us to believe that from the very best of national leaders can come the very best of internationalism. Today, a sense of internationalism has become a necessary ingredient of sound national policies".

Other questionable organizations supporting your COS, Governor, are the: NCSL (National Conference of State Legislators), NCM (National Conference of Mayors), NGA (National Governors Association) to name a few - all of which are adjuncts of the CSG; and now Paul Weyrich's ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) which boasts nearly 3,000 conservative legislative members and which has been strongly pushing for a con-con for nearly twenty years is backing the COS.

That isn't surprising though in view of the fact that Paul Weyrich admitted, by the nature of his views expressed in his article - A Conservative's Lament (Washington Post, 3-8-87) - that he wants a new Constitution. He believes our Constitution has worn out its usefulness because our founders framed a government solely for the protection of the freedom and liberty of the people in America. Today though, he says, the playing field is much more crowded and competitive and if America is to be a world power we need a shadow government like the parliamentarian governments of Europe.

Given the contradictions, inconsistencies and potential dangers of the COS we've pointed out here, perhaps you now understand why the opposition has been so strong. The organizations backing the COS are clearly not promoting American sovereignty and elective representative government. That being the case, what do they see in your plan - allegedly to strengthen states - that interests them?

For a person who wants to strengthen the states, Governor, you keep peculiar company. It appears today there is only one political party where "leadership" is concerned. Some people have aptly dubbed that party "Republicrats". Do you see the dichotomy here, Governor Leavitt? Of course you do. You're sending mixed messages. As it stands, our Constitution is loud and clear. The federal government - created by the people - was given very limited authority, clearly enumerated and defined. ALL OTHER POWERS ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE.

If the federal government over-steps its authority, the states can just say "NO". We don't have to "sue" the government as the ACIR and CSG have encouraged over the years, knowing full well it isn't necessary and knowing the courts will find for the federal government most of the time.

If your intent is sincere, as in your letter you say you are "committed to press forward toward the goal of restoring authority and protections to states" then please think prayerfully and carefully on the following: The federal government has only the power delegated to it by the constitution. Any other powers assumed by either elected officials or appointed bureaucrats are un-Constitutional and of no effect. See 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd, Sec. 256.

"... an un-Constitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, ... is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. ....No one is bound to obey an un-Constitutional statute and no courts are bound to enforce it. ..."

Also see "Constitution of the United States of America - Revised and Annotated" - 1972. - Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress - Government Printing Office. Beginning on page 865 addressing Article VI and the Supremacy Clause, i.e. when is the state supreme and when is the federal government supreme? It refers to Congress passing laws "in pursuance to the Constitution". Chief Justice Marshall quoted on page 866,

"... the states have no power, ... to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress..."

- again -

"... if a law passed by a State... comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws passed in pursuance of it."

Chief Justice Marshall also said,

"The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law."

- and again, regarding Social Security -

"... the operation of the supremacy clause may be seen as well when the authority of Congress is not express but implied, not plenary but dependent upon state acceptance.... State participation in the programs [Social Security] is voluntary, technically speaking, and no State is compelled to enact legislation comporting with the requirements of federal law..."

Even though these particular cases refer to the limits placed on states by the supremacy clause, notice in every single instance it refers to federal laws which are Constitutional or "in pursuance of the Constitution".


We've spoken with many state legislators who are not aware of the power of the Constitution and feel helpless to do anything because of the threats from the federal government of withholding what they call "federal funds", crippling their ability to operate. We believe the answer is self-evident in view of the following:

From: A U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE document out of the National Archives:

To: Clinton's Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group, on page 4, in answering a question... {all emphasis ours}

"(b) may the federal government use other actors in the governmental system and the private sector as its agents and give them orders as though they were part of a prefectorial system?"
"The short answer is 'no'. State governments are independent, although *subordinated, sovereignties, not subdivisions of the federal government. Although the federal government may regulate many of their functions directly - as where, for example, it subjects state water districts to the Clean Water Act - it may not require them to exercise their own governmental powers in a manner dictated by federal law. The states may be encouraged, bribed or threatened into entering into joint federal state programs of various sorts, from unemployment insurance to Medicaid; but they may not be commanded directly to use their own governmental apparatus in the service of federal policy. There is a modest jurisprudence of the Tenth Amendment that seems to have settled on this proposition. See the DOJ memorandum for a fuller elaboration."

*The term subordinated sovereign, is an oxymoron. Orwell called it doublespeak... as in 'WAR IS PEACE'. Just like U.N. Peacekeepers, except now they call them Peacemakers. Sovereign means "preeminent; having no higher or outside authority", and we had better never forget it!

Doesn't this tell us everything we need to know, Governor? The states' autonomy and supremacy under the Constitution are recognized, not only by the courts, but by the federal government. They have been coercing states into compliance, forcing legislatures to pass un-Constitutional laws by withholding our own monies. How do we stop that?

Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key introduced the Tax and State Sovereignty Act this year which recognizes the federal government's right to lay and collect taxes but does not recognize the federal government's right to withhold benefits of those taxes by unConstitutional Mandates. The bill authorizes the creation of a State Escrow Account to collect federal road taxes, alcohol and tobacco taxes and employer federal withholding taxes (income taxes). The state would then send a monthly check to the federal government as long as the federal government did not impose unConstitutional mandates upon the state. In the event the federal government tried to "encourage, bribe or threaten" the state by economic sanctions, the state would use the escrowed funds for general operations. The bill also states,

"F. Any actions by the federal government of the United States, its agencies or agents, against any person in this state for compliance with this act shall be considered as an action against this state and this state shall make an appropriate response to cause the action to cease and desist. This state shall take all necessary measures to recover from the federal government the reasonable costs of defending the action."

This is your opportunity to demonstrate your true intentions, Governor Leavitt. HB1874 passed the Oklahoma State House unanimously. Unfortunately, it didn't get out of the Senate before their session adjourned. If you will support this action as strongly as you've been promoting the COS (which you must now recognize we don't need) your avowed intentions of "restoring authority and protection to states" will be validated. Can you imagine the power of all 50 states enacting this legislation simultaneously and truly reclaiming our Constitutional supremacy over our agent, the federal government?

Or... if, after reading the excerpts of published statements from documents cited herein, you and/or your representatives continue to ridicule our concerns and label us as "far-right extremists" or "just a speck in the national picture" (see New York Times, 7-6-95) your true intent will be revealed. The federal government has usurped state supremacy through the implementation of Regional Governance and control of States monies. If you will work diligently to halt and reverse regionalism (disband all federal regional planning commissions and unConstitutional edicts by federal agencies) and support the enactment of the Tax and State Sovereignty Act... if you will call upon the support of the NGA, NCSL, ALEC, and the many other organizations you've enlisted to promote the COS -- we will have reasserted our sovereignty. If you don't, we will urge state legislators to use their collective power to do so. They can pass laws, over-ride governors' vetos and ignore unConstitutional rulings from courts. If they won't -- we all lose -- including you.

Council on Domestic Relations Home

Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact