From financial.opportunities@canrem.comThu Feb 2 05:11:59 1995
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 95 17:52:00 -0500
From: Financial Opportunities
Reply to: prj@mail.msen.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: The Con-Con Cometh......
Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 06:18:37 -0500 (EST)
Resent-From: James Daugherty
Resent-To: prj@mail.msen.com
***** reposted item ****
From: rlmoose@rmii.com (Rod Lilak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Charles Duke Column 1/23/95
Date: 24 Jan 1995 05:03:10 GMT
[ Article crossposted from co.politics ]
**************************************************************************
As some of you from the Colo Springs area might know, Rep. Charles Duke
writes a weekly column that appears in the Woodmen edition. For the benefit
of Colo. Citizens around the state who might be interested in the topics of
state's rights, the 10th amendment and the continuing encroachment of the
Federal government in our lives, I'll be posting these weekly columns here.
Those interested in contacting Rep. Duke directly may do so at:
cduke@csn.org
*************************************************************************
January 23, 1995
SEN. CHARLES DUKE
(719) 481-9289
(303) 866-4835
By Charles R. Duke
Colorado State Senator - District 9
For some time now there has been a movement afoot in this
nation for states to call for a Constitutional Convention
(Con-Con). To date, 32 states have made a request for a Con-Con
by passing a joint resolution through their state legislative
bodies. Colorado is one of these, having passed Senate Joint
Memorial 1 in 1978.
There are many, this writer among them, who believe this
would be a very serious mistake. Usually, the Con-Con
(sometimes called Philadelphia II) is proposed to meet in
Philadelphia and the document most often suggested to replace
our present Constitution is the Newstates Constitution, which
will be the subject of a future column.
There are three states which have rescinded their request.
The promoters of the Con-Con, however, contend that passing a
joint resolution to rescind that state's request does not
actually alleviate the fact that the request was in fact made.
It is the same philosophy that says you cannot unring a bell.
At least one of these three (Nevada) included in their
rescission resolution the direction to return to the official
records for 1979, which was the year Nevada adopted their
request (SJR 8) for a Con-Con, draw a black border around the
portion of the journal which contained SJR 8, and write the
words, "Expunged by order of the Assembly this 24th day of June,
1989", across the face of the record. The effect of this, which
passed the Nevada Assembly in 1989, is to actually remove from
the historical record the request itself. This should place
Nevada in a stronger position legally to deny that its request
for a Con-Con is any longer valid.
For a Con-Con to happen, it must have been requested by 34
states. Depending on your viewpoint concerning rescissions, we
are either 2 short or 5 short of that moment. The promoters of
Philadelphia II have been unable to secure the final two states.
You will see why when you see more details of the Newstates
Constitution.
As the States' Rights Movement gains momentum across
America, there have been and will continue to be attempts to
stop or sidetrack the movement. In general, Philadelphia II
promoters are moving in the opposite direction from state
sovereignty.
A clever but insidious device created by Governor Michael
Leavitt of Utah last year calls for a Conference of States
(COS). This idea was picked up by a lobbying organization
known as the Council of State Governments (CSG), which may be
thought of as the ultimate government lobbying agency. Its
members, with memberships paid by tax dollars, belong to all
levels of government, from state to county to city. Late last
year, the idea of the COS was endorsed by the National
Governor's Conference.
This COS is an extremely dangerous action to take. An
officially sanctioned meeting by 38 states has the power, if it
wishes, to turn itself into a Con-Con by simply passing a
resolution to that effect. It derives this power from the Tenth
Amendment, which fundamentally says that states have any power
they wish, so long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution.
The COS differs from other national meetings that might be held
because the appointment of the delegates and the state
endorsement of the meeting are by a resolution from your
legislature, most unusual.
As further evidence, CSG speaks of the need for
"structural, long-term changes" to government being needed. It
is proposed that COS be held in Philadelphia in the late Summer
or early Fall of 1995. Gov. Leavitt's own position paper on the
COS states that our national government is "outdated and old-
fashioned." He states, "It is not suited for the fast-paced,
high-tech, global marketplace we are entering. There is a much
better way."
In the Colorado general Assembly, we have Senate Joint
Resolution 9, introduced on January 19, 1995, by Senator Jeff
Wells, the Majority Leader of the Colorado Senate. It is
Colorado's request to participate in the COS. Our delegation
would consist of seven members, one from the Governor's office
and three each appointed by the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate.
It is said their work will have to be ratified by the
states, and people no doubt think that means the Legislature.
But our Constitution permits ratifying conventions to ratify
changes or replacement of our Constitution, completely bypassing
the state legislatures. The COS could decide all these matters
in convention, including the appointment of delegates to a
ratifying convention.
SJR 9 represents a process that should be defeated. The
last Conference of the States that was called in 1786 ultimately
resulted in a new Constitution. Although that document was
momentous, many participants in that conference warned us not to
let it happen again. The Con-Con con must be stopped.--END.
<<<>>>
|
|
Disclaimer: The file contained in the
box above or displayed in a separate window from a link in the
box above is NOT owned nor implied to
be owned by BeYoND THe iLLuSioN. Most files at BeYoND THe
iLLuSioN are originally from public Bulletin Board Systems
(BBS) which were popular in the days before the Internet or
from gopher, web, and FTP sites from the early days of the
Internet which no longer exist today. Essentially, all files
were acquired from the public domain in one for or another.
However, there have been occasions when copyright protected
material has appeared on BeYoND THe iLLuSIoN without permission
of the copyright holder. In these instances, we have and will
continue to remove the copyright protected file as soon as it
is brought to our attention. This can now be done using our Report Copyright Material form. Fill
out the form, and the webmaster will be notified of the
situation.
There are also times when files found on BeYoND THe iLLuSioN
have a real home somewhere else on the Internet. In these
instances, we will gladly replace the file with a link to its
true home whenever it is brought to our attention. If you know
of the true home of any of these files, you can use our Report Original URL form to bring it yo our
attention.
|
