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

Constitutional Convention & Conference of States

     While reformatting this report for our website, re-reading and remembering the chain of events, it is clear that we were divinely led to victory.  It happened then.  It can happen again, for with God all things are possible. The Texas resolution was the only one which admitted the COS delegates intended to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). It laid for three weeks in a pile of other papers and was nearly filed away with the others when we noticed the changed format of the first page. The rest is history.

-- Jackie

Conference of States to call
for a Constitutional Convention

     To understand the intricacies of the planned COS / Con-Con in 1995 read the following report which was featured as a 4 page center pullout section of the August, '95 issue of the CDR Newsletter. Outdated info, i.e. addresses, phone / fax numbers, etc deleted. We experienced a chain of miracles in our efforts to expose the plan for what it was... A back door attempt to a Constitutional Convention to be held in 'historic Philadelphia' on October 24th, coincidental with the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the ratification by the U.S. Senate of the United Nations Charter. You will plainly see the interlink between the 'conservative' leadership and the global elite. Our heavenly Father is Awesome!

 -- Jackie

The Texas Resolution for the Conference of States says Texas delegation will petition the US Congress for a "constitutional amendment convention" under Article V of our Constitution. The Texas Resolution for Participation in the Conference of States is the first we've seen with this particular language.

     In the resolution, the 1st through 4th "whereas" - states that the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights intended a system where federal government and states were to be "EQUAL PARTNERS". The Rockefeller-funded (and founded) Council of State Governments (CSG) obviously relies upon state legislators not knowing the Constitution, or the history, of the making of America. Our founders argued vehemently in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 about the dangers of a central government usurping powers not delegated by the Constitution.

     Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 list the defined and limited powers of the federal government. The states ratified the Constitution only after adding the Bill of Rights to leave no room for guessing or wondering "who's the boss?". We, the sovereign people, created government, the state government represents us and the federal government is our agent ... period.  It is not, nor ever was intended to be an equal partnership, or "co-sovereigns," which is one of the oxymorons they've used in many of their papers dealing with the COS. 'Sovereign' means "having no higher or outside authority; preeminent." There is no such thing as a co-sovereign. The intent to create an equal partnership would bring the states down to a level of subordination to the federal government ... or extinction.

3rd "whereas" - Inferring that the 10th Amendment was the least most important article in the Bill of Rights, added maybe as an afterthought to "appease anti-federalist sentiment."

4th "`whereas" - "Experimental democracy" Article 4, Section 4 in our Constitution guarantees to every state in this union a "Republican form of government." Maybe they intend to experiment the states out of existence.

5th "whereas" - "Unfunded mandates" - not the issue. The 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution addresses all mandates outside the Constitutionally delegated authority to the U.S. Government. That will take care of the unfunded mandates and begin to turn the power back to the states. Oklahoma Representative Charles Key's State Sovereignty Act will (could have) put the "teeth" into the resolution.

     "Leadership in the states." In article after article we hear how "state leaders" are going to fix this problem. We hope the rank 'n file state legislators, as individuals and as a law-making body, have noticed this and question their future role in the deceitful maneuver by Governors and legislative leaders.

6th "whereas" - Discusses the 1989 report from the CSG - and ACIR - (Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). In this report, the "proposals for restoring greater balance to America's system of federalism" are proposed amendments to our Constitution:

NOTE: The Texas legislator who sponsored the resolution to which we referred, after examining information provided by grass-roots networkers, tabled his resolution and expressed his concerns for the dangers of such a COS. However, let the Texas version of the COS Resolution serve to clearly show that the intent of the promoters of the COS is to invoke a Constitutional Convention.

The first proposal is: to add the following words to the Tenth Amendment --

"Whether a power is one reserved to the states, or to the people, shall be decided by the Courts."

     The orchestrators and proponents of the COS say they want to restore federal balance and reclaim states' rights. Under our present Tenth Amendment, states do not have to sue the federal government in matters of sovereignty. The Constitution is loud and clear as to where the power lies. Adding this language to our Tenth Amendment would be to give the federal government, through the Federal Courts, unimaginable power over the states; and, most importantly, over the sovereign people.

The second proposal in this report would be to provide for state-initiated amendment proposals, by adding the following to Article V:

"Whenever three-fourths of the legislatures of the several states deem it necessary, they shall propose amendments to this Constitution that, after two years, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, unless disapproved by two thirds of both Houses of Congress within two years of the date the amendments are submitted to Congress."

On the surface this looks innocent enough. However, in his book A New Constitution Now first published in 1942 by McGraw-Hill and again in 1974 by Arlington House (ISBN 0- 87000-277-5) Henry Hazlitt, an advisor to the NTU (National Taxpayers Union), said on page 271 -

"...an 'amendment' to the Constitution could be proposed that would strike out everything after the paragraph 'We the People...'." [The 'amendment', as one can easily see, could be in itself an entirely new Constitution.]

On page 229 we read,

"The present chapter is written on the probability that, however urgent it may be for the U.S. to adopt a full parliamentary form of government, the American people may be quickly brought to recognize the need for such a change...".

     One could then appropriately assume the rewording of Article V will make it easier for individuals and organizations - who want to drastically alter or rewrite our Constitution - to put in their long-standing proposed changes.

     Some of the organizations promoting a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) are: the NTU (National Taxpayers Union) whose representatives speak at the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) conferences persuading uninformed legislators to introduce resolutions petitioning Congress for a Constitutional Convention. This is done under the guise of adding a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. ALEC's lobbyist, John Armor, has recently testified in favor of a con-con at hearings in Ohio legislature which has a pending con-con resolution.


It is not surprising to discover Paul Weyrich in the lead to attempt an assault on the Constitution, in light of the fact that Weyrich, a founder of ALEC (and the Heritage Foundation which endorsed NAFTA and GATT/WTO), said it all in an article he wrote titled A Conservative's Lament (Washington Post, 3-8-87)

"Our national strategy is outdated, dysfunctional and insupportable.... It is time for a new national grand strategy.... There is a basic contradiction between the structure of our government [the Constitution] and our role as a great power. Our government was designed not to play great-power politics but to preserve domestic liberty. The Founding Fathers knew a nation with such a government could not play the role of great power... As conservatives, we have to help the nation face a stark choice; either modify our institutions of government [the Constitution] to play the game of great power, or move back toward our historic, less active foreign policy. Our current system institutionalizes amateurism. 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.... If we are going to be a serious nation, we need a serious system... we need some type of shadow government..."

Note - 1-15-99 - Paul Weyrich must certainly be aware of the Council on Foreign Relations which member's today occupy four hundred ninety-two (492) positions in the federal branch of our government. You would think that would be shadowy enough for Weyrich.

     In December, 1994, at the ALEC orientation conference for freshman legislators, Senator Charles Duke was told in a 'sovereignty meeting' that they were adopting the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution as a model resolution. Instead, they recently adopted a resolution endorsing the Conference of the States, easily confused with Duke's resolution, because four of the "whereas" paragraphs are word-for-word from the 10th Amendment Resolution. Was this deliberate; to mislead, deceive, and confuse? The danger in the ALEC organization is that its leadership apparently wants to rewrite our Constitution and they claim a membership of 2,500+ of our 7,500 state legislators.


     Another organization, which appears loosely - or maybe not so loosely - connected with ALEC is the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), which published a book titled Reforming American Government. The CCS also wants a parliamentary government for America. On page XVI of RAG they mention that:

"Financial support has come from the FORD FOUNDATION, the BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, and the ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION."

     Richard Thornburgh, former Governor of Pennsylvania and President George Bush's Attorney General, in the 80's served on the Board of the CCS and is co-Chairman of the NTU which trains legislators at ALEC conferences. U.S. Senator Bob Dole's name also appears on a list of Legislative Advisors to the NTU. They all want to rewrite our Constitution. In addition to funding the CCS, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations funded the drafting of a proposed Constitution for The NewStates of America. The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI) spent 10 years, at a cost of $2.5 million per year and completed the document only after 40 preliminary drafts. In this proposed constitution there are no state governments because there are no states ... only ten regions with `overseers' -- appointed bureaucrats.

     The CSDI has also drafted a document titled, A Constitution For The World. Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations Fund CSG and ACIR The same money that brought us the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America funds the Committee on the Constitutional System, the ACIR, and the Council of State Governments -- the planners and orchestrators of the Conference of States. From the CSG's Book of the States, 1935, Volume 1, Rockefeller money from the tax-exempt Spelman Fund put CSG on its feet in 1930.

     The Montgomery County Observer, 2-15-95 fills in the blanks; "That original $40,000 grant, conditioned on *Henry W. Toll becoming CSG's director, was the first of many appropriations by the tax-exempt Rockefeller- Spelman Fund. Later financial boosters included the tax-exempt Carnegie Corporation. Today, CSG is on the verge of remaking all fifty state legislatures."

Note: 1-15-2000 - We discovered later that Henry W. Toll was given an award from England for "meritorious service to the crown". He was also a Uniform Law Commissioner from 1935 until his death sometime in the '70's.

In the Congressional Record (8-6-71 page E9069)

"The Metro syndicate units are too numerous to list here, but include National Municipal League of New York and the Council of State Governments, which is relocating in Lexington, Kentucky. ACIR conceived, packed and controlled by 1313 expedites the self-seeking syndicate's monopoly over the U.S. Government. ACIR, funded by congressional appropriations, also accepts money from the U.S. Treasury direct, the Housing and Urban Development Dept., and the Ford Foundation."

     Council of State Governments is a Non-Governmental, International Organization. ACIR is a federal government creation. Governor Michael Leavitt (R) is a Clinton (D) appointed member of the ACIR and 1995 President of the CSG. He also took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution for the United States of America - or did he? To whom or to what does he pay his allegiance?


     Given the ACIR and CSG issued their report six years ago (1989) for the very same proposed amendments the Conference of States is suggesting today.... whose plan is this? Certainly not Governors Mike Leavitt of Utah and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Leavitt's bio tells us he was appointed to the ACIR by President Clinton and is 1995 President of the CSG. Many alleged Conservative state legislators - primarily the legislative leaders - are introducing the states' resolutions for participation in the COS. If we can, in our minds eye, remove all of the up-front players in this movement and take a look at the facts as presented ... the individuals and organizations that are interconnected by association and funding - Paul Weyrich's ALEC, the NTU, CCS, Rockefeller, Ford & Carnegie tax-exempt foundations, ACIR, CSG and its' many Metro syndicate units (see pg. 3 of the ACIR - CSG 1989 report), we see the real power behind the Conference of States.

     Never mind the fact that in his COS position paper (5-17-94) Leavitt says "...our government is out-dated and old fashioned, not suited for the fast paced high-tech global market place we're entering. There is a better plan." Forget the "better plan" he unveiled at a summit meeting in Phoenix last spring to call for a Conference of States and a Constitutional Convention as reported in the Salt Lake Tribune 5-25-94. Forget the secrecy and deceit by which many of the states are passing the resolution for participation -- bypassing committees to avoid public hearings and passing the resolution by voice-vote so the people these legislators allegedly represent don't know who the betrayers are. They're just pawns in a dangerously deadly game being played by that shadow government for which Paul Weyrich yearns.


     First, let's set the stage. In the same 2-15-95 Montgomery County Observer (Pennsylvania) article mentioned previously ... "Leavitt says the current leadership in Congress 'is very friendly to the idea (COS).' He says Senate Republican leader Bob Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich have expressed an interest in having Congress send a delegation." (To the COS). According to journalist, Trish Katsen, Gingrich has confirmed he will attend as a delegate.

Returning to the Texas resolution for participation in the COS - - the 5th "resolved" says,

"That the conference agenda extend also to common language to be used in State Petitions to the U.S. Congress for a Constitutional Amendment Convention under Article V."

     Does that leave any question as to the intent of the orchestrators of the Conference of States? They intend to use Article V to call for a Con-Con. Now, follow this ... if Dole and Gingrich send a Congressional delegation to the COS, when the states' delegations petition Congress for a Con-Con does it stand to reason the Congressional delegation, representing and acting on behalf of the U.S. Congress, will have the power to convene a Constitutional Convention? Remembering that the same money which funds the CCS also funds CSG and ACIR, these final quotes from CCS' book "Reforming American Government" should dispel any further doubts.

"Fundamentally, this is to alter the whole balance of the American Constitution." Harold Laski, page 142

"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 Bums, page 160
"Changes will be brought about by leadership, as in the drafting and adoption of the Constitution of 1787." James M. Burns, page 162

     Your state legislators MUST have this information - meet with them personally if possible. Our Constitution, American sovereignty, and the freedom of all Americans hangs in the balance. The Conference of States Must NOT take place - NOT in Philadelphia on October 24th this year (the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations) - NOT EVER. State legislatures which have passed the resolution should begin rescission proceedings immediately.

UPDATE - 7/23/95 -- At an ALEC meeting held in Virginia 5/18-20/95 Governor Leavitt said, "We must sell this plan to 7500 state legislators". Even though they have been slowed (14 states have passed the resolution / 27 have voted it down or let it die at sessions end) the COS is far from being a dead issue. We believe the backers of this plan intend to alter - by drastically weakening or rewriting - our Constitution.

     This information was compiled by the Council on Domestic Relations (by the Grace of God and His ministering Angels) - For a separate packet of documents, including Gov. Allen's Executive Order 37, Attachment B, The Virginia Resolve, various newspaper articles, etc. send $10 donation to: M.K. Fields, 14 Pochahantus Path, Front Royal, Virginia 22630


Council on Domestic Relations Home

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