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

Constitutional Convention & Conference of States

Utah Governor Mike Leavitt's
Position on the Conference of States

The following is transcript of Utah Governor Mike Leavitt's position paper on the Conference of States. All sentences in parantheses are our comments. The states' Resolution for Participation in the Conference of States has passed in Utah and Virginia. According to the Council of State Governments it has also passed one chamber (House or Senate) in 7 states and has been introduced in 18 others. We just received the information Friday evening (1-27) so could not get names of states. Anyone who wishes hardcopy of the MEMORANDUM included with a full info packet (Virginia Gov. George Allen's Ex. Order #37, the Williamsburg resolve with attachs. A & B; Counsel of State Govt's Resolution; 6-pg nsltr article; assorted news clippings) send $10 donation for copy & mailing cost to: M.K. Fields, 14 Pochanhantus Path, Front Royal, Virginia, 22630. Each individual receiving this information is urged to contact your state legislature. Find out if a Resolution for Participation in the Conference of States has been or is being introduced in your state. Get the information to your legislators to alert them of the dangers of this Conference of States and alert all groups and organizations in your state.

Whether they are planning it or not, all condititons exist to declare a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN PHILADELPHIA THIS YEAR.

SALT LAKE CITY 84114-0601


MEMORANDUM May 17, 1994

To: Parties interested in the Conference of the States proposal
From: Gov. Mike Leavitt/LaVarr Webb, deputy for policy, (801)538-1506
Subject: Conference of the States

For many years, thoughtful citizens and government leaders have expressed concern about the growth of the federal government and the centralization of power at the federal level. The states, while intended to be equal partners in our nation's governmental system, have over a period of many years been relegated to subordinate status. (No-the states were never intended to be equal partners. The government was created as "agent" to the states. There is no such thing as "dual-sovereignty".)

Today, the depth and breadth of concern over this issue has reached the point that hundreds of governors, legislators, county leaders, city leaders and others are ready to stop talking and start taking action. (Lesislators already have taken action - via the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty Resolution)

One reason that states have not been able to successfully compete for power in the federal system is that state power is dispersed. As governing bodies, states are very successful. They are solving problems related to health care, crime, human services and the environment with progressive, innovative approaches. But as competitors in the federal system, their power is spread over 50 states with their only collective action being conducted through various associations whose main activity has been petitioning the Congress. (The "various associations" which have been petitioning the Congress are the National Governors' Association, ALEC, the National Conference of State Legislators, etc. All ACIR sub-associations. The legislators sponsoring, supporting and passing the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty Resolution (47 states so far) are NOT petitioning the feds. They're putting the feds on notice to "cease and desist immediately all mandates beyond the scope of its Constitutionally delegated authority". Leavitt has it upside down and backwards.)

By contrast, the U.S. Congress meets at the same place for 200 or so days each year and takes collective action daily. It is hard for the states, with their dispersed power, to compete with the consolidated power of the Congress.

Thus, the states must find a means to consolidate their power through an event or series of events that bring the states together to take action, not just plead with Congress for relief. (The state legislators - true representatives of the people - are invited to the Principal Assembly in Colorado which will be hosted by Colorado Senator Charles Duke. Plans are already in progress for a Spring meeting - NOT A CONFERENCE OF STATES WITH SANCTIONED DELEGATES WHICH COULD CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.)

What is needed is a rational, realistic, careful and sensible approach to this problem. The attached paper proposes a process by which states can take collective action and bring a better balance in the federal system.


An Action Plan to restore Balance in the Federal System

Whenever state and local officials get together, a great sport is made of bashing the federal government.

In the last several months, the rhetoric has become especially heated over unfunded mandates forced upon state/local leaders by paternalistic federal officials. Outrage and anger are displayed at meetings of the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities and Towns. State and local leaders are close to open rebellion.

But the reality is that despite all the talk. ..there's very little real action or real improvement. (Right! What rock has Leavitt been hiding under? Has he not heard of the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement?)

Other than the psychological value of blowing off some steam and commiserating with ones' peers, very little progress has emerged from such meetings. Speeches are made, resolutions are passed, lists of grievances are aired. But the federal bureaucracy, the Congress, and the president go right on consolidating power, usurping local authority; and viewing states as mere administrative units of the federal government.

State and local leaders have plenty of desire to do something about this matter. They have lots of energy, significant intellectual capacity. Hundreds of articles and many books have been written about federalism and states' rights, decrying centralization of power and the loss of flexibility at state and local levels. But like the weather, everyone talks about the erosion of states' rights . ..no one really does anything about it. (Where has Leavitt been these past 10 months?)

What has been lacking in all the talk is a real PLAN, a real PROCESS, to really do something . ..to actually engage in an effort that will restore balance in the federal system. States must take the initiative. Relying on the goodwill of the president - of whatever party - the Congress, the bureaucracy, or the courts to restore proper balance is so naive as to be laughable. (And this entire diatribe would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Leavitt is certainly not an alert and aware State Governor if he doesn't know about the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement. He has never spoken to Senator Duke, nor invited him to their conclaves. How pathetic and dangerous is a powerful elected official who speaks empty words as though they mean something. More frightening are other elected officials who take it seriously)

The purpose of this paper is to offer ideas for a PLAN. The message here is that the time of hoping, begging and waiting has ended. The time for action has come. It is time to re-establish states as major constitutional players. (States have always been the major Constitutional players according to the Constitution for the United States of America. To whom or to what did Leavitt take an oath if he isn't already aware of that fact?)

This paper outlines a simple, but powerful, process for states to retake the initiative, to take control of their own destinies, to assume their rightful roles, to return proper authority, flexibility and stature to the states. It is powerful because it relies upon precedents established by the Founding Fathers at the time of our nation's birth. It is also powerful because it provides a "big gear" to address this problem, focusing on fundamental, structural change, rather than fussing around with a lot of smaller gears...the day to day issues that frustrate state and local governments. Turning the "big gear" will get the smaller gears spinning, resolving many of the federal-state conflicts on specific issues. (He mentions the "big gear" several times throughout this paper. Is he alluding to a Constitutional Convention but won't say it?)

This plan has nothing to do with political partisanship. It s not a Republican or a Democratic plan. And it is motivated by much more than political ideology. While restoring proper balance in the federal system is important for maximum personal liberty, it is also important for reasons of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and global competitiveness. (Of the 250million Americans in this country, how many care about GLOBAL COMPETIVENESS? Only International bankers and multi-national companies who fund campaigns to elect state leaders who will talk about the "global marketplace", "global competiveness", "global this and global that") The present arrangement of centralized control at the federal level, with programs administered by huge, inefficient, out-of-touch bureaucracies, is not positioning our country for growth and prosperity in the next century. Unfunded federal mandates rob states of innovation capital. (Wrong... un-Constitutional mandates and un-Constitutional spending by the federal government robs the states... which are comprised of working, living, breathing human beings.) Successful organizations are decentralizing and downsizing. bureaucracies are being dismantled across the world. Futurist John Naisbitt said, "In one of the major turnarounds in my lifetime, we have moved from 'economies of scale' to 'diseconomies of scale'; from bigger is better to bigger is inefficient, costly, wastefully bureaucratic, inflexible and now, disastrous." He added that the almost perfect metaphor for the movement from bureaucracies of every kind to small, autonomous units, is the shift from mainframe computers to PCs, networked together. "Whether president or CEO, if you are an old mainframe thinker, you are no longer relevant." (Newt Gingrich also espouses Naisbitt's futuristic philosophy.)

The idea that a central government...one huge mainframe -- is the most important part of governance is obsolete. The deployment of power must shift from the central government to states and individuals. From vertical to horizontal; from hierarchy to networking. As Naisbitt says, politics must begin to re-emerge as the engine of individualism.

But even as the world's successful business leaders decentralize and move power to the lowest possible point in the organization, OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT grows ever bigger and more bureaucratic. It IS OUTDATED AND OLD FASHIONED. IT IS NOT SUITED FOR THE FAST-PACED, HIGH-TECH, GLOBAL MARKETPLACE WE ARE ENTERING. THERE IS A MUCH BETTER WAY. (Now we know what Leavitt thinks about our Constitution and probably what he will do as soon as he gets the chance in Philadelphia at the Conference of States... that is IF the Conference of States makes it to Philadelphia. And God save us all if it does. The Colorado Resolution for Participation in the Conference of States alludes to the intention of making long-term structural changes - it's our Constitution they intend to change.)

It should also be said from the outset that the supporters of this plan believe in a strong central government, as outlined in the Constitution. This is not an attempt to destroy the federal government, or to make states the dominant players in our system. The intent is simply to restore a proper balance.


It is fascinating to note that the problem we confront today regarding balance in the federal system is similar to what the Founding Fathers of this country faced more than 200 years ago with regard to the Articles of Confederation -- only just the reverse. Then, the national government was too weak and the states too strong. Today, the national government is too powerful and the states too weak.

It is vitally important to see how the Founding Fathers solved the problems of the weak Confederation. Some of what occurred then can help guide us today in restoring balance in the federal system. (Yes, our Founding Fathers went to Philadelphia as a Conference of States with instructions from the states and the Congress to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead.... they dissolved the government and started over simply by passing a resolutionsaying so.)

The 13 states were, in effect, nearly autonomous countries under the Articles of Confederation. They had all the power. The Confederation Congress had little power. The congress could not require the states to carry out any of its decisions. Every bill that Congress passed had to be approved by nine of the 13 states. There was no national military; no ability to regulate foreign trade or commerce among the states; no ability to resolve arguments over state boundaries; no power of taxation unless all 13 states agreed; and no common currency. Attendance at the Confederation Congress was poor.

George Washington sadly described the national government as a "rope of sand" and observed that "the Confederation appears to me to be a shadow without substance."

Something had to be done, but where would the political will come from to strengthen the national government? Who would initiate such a bold move? Each state legislature clung tenaciously to its power. Members of the Confederation Congress had no mandate or desire to begin such a movement. They might lose their jobs. It would take courageous people of good will to instigate changes. (And today, are those courageous people Governors Leavitt, Nelson and Allen? And state Legislative Leaders who are pushing this? Will they go down in history as the men who destroyed freedom in the world? Will they glory in their infamy? Maybe they expect to have a place in the New World Order. And what/who will protect them when there is no longer a Constitution for the United States of America which secures the inalienable rights of all men? U.N.Peacekeepers?)

The first break came at the instigation of James Madison and the Virginia Legislature. They called for a conference of states -- remember that term -- to consider common interests in commercial regulations. Only five states responded, and the major result of the conference was a report asking that all states send delegates to another meeting in Philadelphia on the second Monday of the following May. Little did anyone know that the invitation would be the thunderbolt that would lead to the birth of our presentfederal government.

One by one, the states accepted the invitation. Once seven states had agreed, the Confederation Congress acknowledged what was happening and tried to minimize the impact by officially recognizing it. However, the Congress tried to limit the convention's authority by stating that it would meet "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."

As we all know, the delegates to the great Constitutional Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia did much more than that. THEY THREW OUT THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND DRAFTED A NEW CONSTITUTION. Among others, two issues were important in that debate: 1) large states versus small states; and 2) national government versus states' rights.

To balance the interests of large and small states, the delegates produced a brilliant solution, today referred to as the Great Compromise. It gave each state equal representation in the Senate, with representation in the House determined by population. To balance power between the states and the national government, and to prevent domination by any branch of government, the Constitution created what Madison called a "compound republic," with power split between two levels -- national and state -- and then split again among three branches of government at both levels. "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people," said Madison. The new Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights, gave superior power in limited areas to the national government, but reserved all other authority to the states. It intended to keep most everyday governmental functions at the level closest to the people.

The Constitution established a balanced competition among levels and branches of government. The people are protected, and the best public policy emerges, only when those levels and branches are willing and able to compete for power. If any one level or branch of government unable to compete, power will be concentrated improperly and the rights of the people will be endangered. The Articles of Confederation failed because power was concentrated in states and the national government was unable to compete.

The 10th Amendment reserved all non-delegated and non-prohibited power to the states or to the people, clearly reserving a major role for state and local officials. One of Madison's arguments demonstrating that states had clear authority in the federal system, and that the proposed Constitution truly divided power, was that the states were the political units by which the people would approve it.

As we know so well, over many years the original intent of the founders has been eroded and the national government has consolidated power and authority, while states have lost power and ability to compete. Some of the erosion has been the states' own fault. Citizens during the Progressive Era sought major social and economic reforms. States were slow to respond, so reforms occurred at the national level, led by the presidencies of Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. (Wilson, who U.S. Senator Joe Biden reveres, gave us the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and is quoted as later saying, "I have unwittingly destroyed my country".) State primacy was eroded. Misconduct by industry prompted unprecedented national intervention in economic affairs and a new willingness by the American people to look to Washington, rather than to state capitols, for protection against domestic threats to health and safety.

Any last resistance to an expanding national role was overwhelmed by President Roosevelt's vast responses to the Great Depression and World War 11. National dollars pumped life into the economy and states surrendered autonomy in exchange for assistance. (Dare we ask who created the great depression and from whom those "federal dollars" came?) The states' reluctance to act on environmental regulation and civil rights matters further allowed the national government to usurp state prerogatives. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society constituted another giant leap in the growth of the federal government. The states did not resist, and the age of fiscal federalism began. Richard Nixon's revenue sharing program is an example. Governors and mayors were happy to receive a flood of federal dollars, even if accompanied by burdensome paperwork and regulation. (Perhaps the states, by asserting the 10th Amendment, could regain control of the dollars and then they would no longer be "federal dollars".)

All of this happened in relatively small increments and for seemingly good purposes. In many cases, it was the fault of state and local governments, which did not respond promptly to serious problems or were willing to give up autonomy for federal dollars.

Whatever the reasons the pendulum has swung too far. The federal government now has too much power, is too unresponsive and bureaucratic, and too expensive. The system is simply not working. States are no longer competitive forces able to act as a balance to the federal government. Instead of being a full-fledged counterbalance to federal dominance, states are being treated and viewed like administrative units of the federal government. (This is exactly the issue which motivated the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement.) The protections offered by the Miracle of Philadelphia, are significantly eroded. Thus, the federal government is running huge deficits, is over-regulating states and citizens, is imposing one-size-fits-all requirements that make no sense, is out-of-touch with local concerns, and is engaging in the new dishonesty in government -- unfunded mandates. (What's newabout that?)

The solution is to restore competition in the system by returning to the kind of balance intended by the founders. States must obtain more leverage so they can compete for power. But how?


First, a dose of reality. Congress will not fix this. Congress has every incentive to continue the trend toward centralization. (What is Congress' incentive? Congress is not a thing....it is made up of the people who fill the positions...supposed representatives of the people and the states.)

The federal bureaucracy has even less incentive than Congress to return authority to the states. Even if a president is so inclined to try to reverse the trend, he is limited by the Congress and the bureaucracy. (Doesn't the president appoint the bureaucrats?) And we cannot depend on the courts. The federal courts have generally not been friendly to the role of states over the past 60 years. The nationalist philosophy has prevailed. We simply cannot expect the federal government to voluntarily give up power. (Once again, what... or more specifically, who is "the federal government"? They have nothing to give up because it isn't theirs to give. The states must simply reassert the Constitutionally delegated power.)

Just as in the days of James Madison, if proper balance and competition are to be restored, the states will have to do it. States are the only players left that constitutionally have a place at the table. It is the proper role of states to bring balance by competing for power. (Exactly - and it will be done by implementing the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement)

States have three tools to restore balance: public support, legal tools, and constitutional tools. (The 10th Amendment - State Sovereignty movement has public support and the Constitution to enforce it. What more do we need? State legislators who will listen to and stand up with/for the American people... NOT a Conference of the States = Constitutional Convention.)

PUBLIC SUPPORT Citizens generally support the states on this issue. They distrust Washington and the federal government. Voters have been prone to elect outsiders as president, like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton -- all former state governors. (Who does he think buys this one? Voters vote for the candidates chosen by the CFR and presented on a plate. We haven't had a real candidate, chosen by the people since before F.D.R. Maybe Leavitt has designs on the presidency?) More candidates for offices at all levels of government should be recruited who want to bring balance back to the system. An army of governors, states legislators, mayors, county officials, members of Congress and even presidential candidates could have an impact. But the process will, again, be slow. More is required.

LEGAL TOOLS States have not been aggressive enough in asserting claims under the Constitution protecting their role. Many of the most important cases have been left to individual states who were inadequately prepared and poorly financed. While legal redress should be pursued, it is not likely that a major shift in the balance of power will occur any time soon as a result of court action. The process will be long and difficult and the result is uncertain. (The states do not have to enter into legal action against their agent, the federal government. In those cases where they have, if the federal courts find against states in matters of sovereignty, then the states must ignore the courts. Federal courts have a clear conflict of interest.)

CONSTITUTIONAL TOOLS -- or the threat of constitutional action. The drafters of the Constitution sensed that times would change. They knew adjustments would be necessary. They provided a process for change and gave tools to the states to restore balance in the system. While state have never used this particular tool, it is important to recognize that it exists and is available if balance can be restored in no other way. This tool is precious for states. It gives them high status in the federal system and provides a check on the federal government. It provides important leverage and makes states more competitive in the system. (His paragraph ends here. To what tool could we presume he is referring? He won't say it, so we will.... a Constitutional Convention. What else? His next paragraph heading....)

A CONFERENCE OF THE STATES Public support, legal standing, and constitutional options are potentially powerful tools, but to date have been little used. Individual states constitute good government because they represent power dispersed through 50 separate entities. While that quality has virtue as a principle of governance, it makes competing with a monolithic force like the federal government difficult. (The federal government is no more "monolithic" than we give it credence to be. Here's a real dose of reality -- state legislators who have not sold out, been black-mailed or are not brain dead can "just say 'NO' to the federal government. Sovereignty, according to Baron's Law Dictionary - Third Edition - means "preeminent among all others". And 'preeminent' means -- "authority" "prominent" "elevated" "chief" "principal"... etc.)

In order to challenge and compete for their rightful role, states require a rallying event, a means of consolidating their power. It should be a process less disruptive than calling a constitutional convention, but one that demands results and responses... a call to action. (Governor Leavitt is like the Emperor Who Had No Clothes. He rants on and on as though a strong and powerful movement has not been taken up already in all 50 states. If he really means what he is saying, why don't the Governors of all 50 states just simply support their state legislators in asserting the autonomy of the states in invoking the Constitution under the 10th - and 9th - Amendments? ...namely the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement. It has already passed in 10 state legislatures, is introduced in 20....not to mention the remaining 20 state which have sponsors for the Resolution.)

History maps the way. (Read the following carefully and you will understand what Leavitt has in store for us. They are reconstructing history to replay it in Philadelphia in 1995.) When James Madison and others could see that the national/state relationship was out of balance in 1786, they called for an informal, grassroots conference of leaders from each state. The result of that meeting was a call for a formal convention which resulted in the drafting of the Constitution and our present formof government.

Today, we suggest a five-part plan:

1. Each state will send a delegation, presumably legislators and governors, to a "Conference of the States." to validate its participation, each state should pass a resolution in its legislature authorizing an official delegation. States unable to pass resolutions could be represented by members of the Legislature willing to come on their own as a delegation. The conference would have rules defining how it operates.

2. At the informal "Conference of the States," one narrow purpose would be undertaken -- to develop an agenda or action plan that would give states leverage to compete in the federal system, ultimately restoring balance between the states and the national government. The action plan could consist of legal strategies, carefully crafted amendments to the U.S. Constitution, OR OTHERCOMPONENTS.

3. If a high percentage of the state delegations to the "Conference of States" supported the Action Plan, the delegations would take the plan, in the form of resolutions, back to their states for presentation to their Legislatures. (In the Constitutional Convention of 1787 the Conference met as a Committee of the Whole; adopted a Resolution to Dissolve the Articles of Confederation and that was the end of that. Then they re-convened as a Constitutional Convention and made "long-term structural changes". In other words, they reconstructed our form of government. The Colorado resolution for Participation in the Conference of States says they intend to make "long term structural changes". Dare we risk the possible/probable consequences of another Constitutional Convention?)

4. The Legislatures would then act. If, say, 75% of the Legislatures of this country formally endorsed the Action Plan, the "Conference of States" would then ask Congress to act. With so many states providing support, it is likely that Congress would give heed. One must suppose that any proposal that survived the careful consideration and scrutiny by that many legislatures must be good and badly needed public policy. (Another dose of reality -- if our state legislators approve the resolution for this Conference of States we cannot suppose any good could come of any resolutions approved by them.) If approved by Congress, any constitutional amendment would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. (Here is the big lie -- by omission. According to Article V of our present Constitution amendments would be ratified by 3/4ths of the state LEGISLATURES or by 3/4ths of RATIFYING CONVENTIONS IN THE STATES. Our Legislatures can be bypassed in favor of the ratifying conventions. The U.S. Congress decides the mode of ratification. If that makes you feel a 'bit uneasy', consider this -- the Convention can change the ratifying process....or worse yet, rewrite our Constitution. So, God only knows what would come of a Convention.)

5. If Congress refused to consider or pass the amendments, the states would have the option themselves of calling a constitutional convention to consider the amendments. (Here's what James Madison had to say about the talk of a Constitutional Convention as a means to make some changes in our Constitution before it was ratified..."... Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I SHOULD TREMBLE FOR THE RESULT OF A SECOND".) This threat would provide the leverage that has been missing in state dealing with the federal government. It would make states a competitive force to be reckoned with. It would act as a counterbalance to the arrogance of the Congress. (It's interesting the way Leavitt speaks of "the Congress" as though Congress is an "it". His picture was taken with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole - all snuggled together. Is it possible this Conference of States has been contrived by the planners of a global government to once and for all dismantle the Constitution so as to pave the way to their New World Order? And could Leavitt believe he will have a place in the new World Government?)

Supporters of this proposal hope and believe that such dire action as calling a constitutional convention would not be necessary. But the threat must exist to motivate Congress to act. The Constitution provides for this action by states as a check on the federal government, to force progress when Congress refuses to act. It must be assumed that a gathering of delegates appointed by at least two-thirds of the states would be just as responsible and careful as is the Congress, which has the authority at any time to propose constitutional amendments.

(This is a whole new debate. Who ever said the Congress is responsible and careful? Leavitt just referred to them as arrogant. Additionally, the "gathering of delegates" would not be appointed by two-thirds of the "states". According to the Resolution for Participation in the Conference of States the delegates will be selected by "legislative leaders" who are promoting this Conference, along with the states' Governors. This means... listen carefully now.... the delegates {5-7 from each state} who attend the Conference of States will be the governors and legislators selected by the legislative leaders. We can expect all or most of the 50 Governors to be in attendance and since the resolution doesn't prohibit the legislative leaders from selecting themselves, probably four legislative "leaders" from each state will become delegates. Since the legislative leaders and Governors are the driving force for the Conference of States and since we've been told the other legislators (peons?) won't "buck the leadership", the chances of a majority of states passing it is a strong probability. We're looking, then, at a Conference of States attended by 250-350 officially sanctioned state delegates who may and probably will declare a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia this year. These few-hundred self-selected people will then have full and supreme authority as law makers for the 250 million people in America who are presently protected from tyranny by the Constitution for the United States of America. God save us from this insanity.)

(If you question the authority and power these delegates have...consider this -- from Corpus (body) Jurus (law) Secundum (according to) 16 C.J.S. 9 - Standard Reference Text for American Constitutional Law - "(1) members (officially sanctioned delegates) of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (2) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (3) they derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (4) and hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (5) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, a Constitution." Citations: Miss., Sproul v. Fredericks; Iowa, Koehler v. Hill; W.V., Loomis v. Jackson; Oklahoma, Frantz v. Autry; Texas, Cox v. Robison)

Besides potential constitutional action, the agenda established by the Conference of States would also ignite a national political debate that no candidate for Congress, for president, for governor, or for any state legislative race could avoid. (We already know what you're talking about, Governor Leavitt. AND WE KNOW WHY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. The 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement is already upon you.) All would be forced to take positions on federalism issues, and this matter of federal/state balance could become the pre-eminent political issue of the day, again providing leverage and making states more competitive. The agenda would also provide a rallying point for citizens who are frustrated and who want responsible change. ("Look! The Emperor has no clothes!")

The informal "Conference of the States" is a key and important element of this plan. Its purpose must be clearly defined (to neutralize the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement?) and focused on broad, fundamental actions that would restore careful balance to the federal/state relationship. The Conference must not be allowed to become sidetracked on specific issues supported or opposed by any number of special interest groups. It must not be captured by the left or the right (just stick to the globalists' agenda) or any single group. It must not become a forum for pro-abortion or anti-abortion, or pro-gun control or anti-gun control groups who might want amendments of their own. There are hundreds of causes that people would like to address with constitutional amendments. The Conference is not a forum for such discussions. (It is a Constitutional Convention to implement the Global Government under the New World Order) It must remain focused on the fundamental issue of providing leverage and bringing balance to federal/state relationships. (Is anybody very, very tired with this Orwellian double-speak? We are not "partners" with the federal government. We are its creators. It is our agent. We, the people are sovereign over all government, including the state government when it is not in keeping with the Constitution)

The Conference must not attempt to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction by proposing too much authority for the states. A strong national government is still needed. It would make sense to focus on amendments that are already broadly supported and are not partisan in nature. (Oh.... and what might those "amendments" be, Governor Leavitt? Has it not yet dawned on you to merely support the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty movement which the legislators in 47 states have already pledged to support... and implement? Have you governors and state legislative leaders ever considered just invoking the Constitution as it now exists? Just put the federal government back in the cage our founders built for it.)

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS A number of amendments might be considered by the Conference of States. Some of those suggested would prohibit unfunded mandates (or could we consider... maybe.... perhaps.... un-Constitutional mandates?... or had you not thought of that?) and strengthen the language in the 10th Amendment. (How could it be stronger or more clear? Maybe you like Virginia Governor, George Allen's proposed amendment that would allow 2/3rds of the vote of Congress to over-ride resolutions from the states to repeal "objectionable" federal mandates which, under the 10th Amendment, we now have the power to just reject.) A substantial amount of research and effort would be required to determine the proper direction and specific amendments. A great deal of scholarly research has already been done in this area, some of it by governors' organizations and legislators' organizations. (Could he be talking about the ACIR's -- National Governors' Association and National Conference of State Legislators? Those associations which have been created by the Internationalists who are using their stooges to pull America into the New World Order?)

CONCLUSION This process is reasoned; it is careful. It relies on the good sense and patriotism of governors, state legislators and local government officials from across this country. This effort is non-partisan and free from special interest group influence.

The process outlined in this paper gives state and local leaders a plan. It gives them a "big gear" to ultimately solve many of the lesser problems they encounter with the federal government. They can do more than just complain and talk. They can act. they are the only ones who will work to restore balance in our federal system. Congress never will. (Even Leavitt's friends, Newt and Bob?) The courts never will. The president never will. But state leaders will. (Notice how he consistently refers to "state leaders"? He pretends the legislators, elected in small districts within the states by the people, are non-existent. Only the "state leaders" will do something. There are 7,500 state legislators in the states, and only 250 state leaders. Lots more Indians than chiefs. Let's see if.... and hope... and pray that the Indians will stand against the chiefs who are leading them and America to self-destruction. This Conference of States must not come topass.)

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