From no-con-con-request@webcom.comWed Mar 29 08:18:18 1995
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 22:14:32 -0800
From: no-con-con-request@webcom.com
To: jhdaugh@a-albionic.com
Subject: Welcome to no-con-con

--

Welcome to the no-con-con mailing list!

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list,
send the following command in email to
"no-con-con-request@webcom.com":

    unsubscribe

Here's the general information for the list you've
subscribed to, in case you don't already have it:

no-con-con is devoted to the impending Conference of the States resolutions 
that are insidiously sweeping through the states house of all 50 sovereign states.  

The following story from The Montgomery County Observer and printed with
permission of the publisher should explain what we are up against:

''Conference of the States''
OR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
   It appears governors and legislative leaders of all 50 states may meet
this fall in a ''Conference of the States'' in an effort to force Congress
to give back some power, they say.
   A bipartisan group of governors and state lawmakers has scheduled a third
working session last Friday to focus on logistical matters. The first two
settled on language for calling the conference.
   These leaders believe a ''Conference of the States'' is going to happen
and that it's just a question of when.
   The task force, set up by the National Governors Association and the
National Conference of State Legislatures, decided it should have the
approval of at least 26 state legislatures to call for this meeting of all
states. Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt is confident the support is out there for
what he calls a ''historic'' gathering.
   Leavitt, the prime mover behind the conference, believes all states will
approve the idea. So far this year, Kentucky, Arkansas, Utah, Iowa, Virginia
and Delaware have passed resolutions calling for such a conference. In nine
others, one chamber has given its approval, with final approval pending in
the other.
   ''It's just a matter of time before we get a majority of states to pass
it,'' said Carl Tubbesing, director of NCSL's Washington office.
   The NGA and NCSL set up the joint task force last summer. The implied
threat from the states is that if the federal government doesn't agree to
the proposals agreed upon by the ''Conference of the States'' to give back
some power now enjoyed by Congress, the states can offer a constitutional
amendment Congress might find even less appealing.
   The consensus of task force members is that the ''Conference of the
States'' will be held in Philadelphia, where the Founding Fathers drew up
the Constitution. Leavitt hopes the meeting can be on October 24th, so
business could be concluded before 1996 presidential politics take over the
national stage.
   Leavitt says the current leadership in Congress ''is very friendly to the
idea.'' He says Senate Republican leader Bob Dole and House Speaker Newt
Gingrich have expressed an interest in having Congress send a delegation.
   Leavitt said that no organized opposition has surfaced to a ''Conference
of the States,'' which is not quite true, since many of patriot groups has
raised serious question about this conference. Many Americans are clearly
disturbed by this movement for a ''Conference of the States.'' Historical
documents provide a clear insight in to this movement for a new
Constitutional Convention. Its passage would authorize a series of a
convocation of states is tantamount to, and possession of, the process
essential to a constitutional convention.
   The formalized appointment of certified delegates empowered to vote at
this federal convocation. The resolutions which become legal instruments
authorizing the delegates to deliberate, propose, and adopt long-term
fundamental structural changes in the U.S. Constitution.
   In Pennsylvania, Senate Bill #12 was introduced by Sen. Mike Fisher, has
been passed. A similar House Resolution #30 has also been introduced, but
has not yet been voted on. Among the supporters are two local Reps., Bunt
and Fichter of Montgomery County.
   In a speech in Arizona last April, Governor Michael Leavitt stated that
he was considering a plan to call a constitutional convention. This
statement upset his audience, and members of the Utah legislature. State
Rep. Met Johnson said:
   Mike got all wild and weird on us with this constitutional convention
speech in Phoenix. The Constitution isn't broken; we don't want to open it
up. When Mike started talking about that, we just put our heads in our
mashed potatoes and groaned, "oh no."
Salt Lake Tribune, April 25, 1994.
   In September of 1989 the CSG (see story on pg. 13) recommended that the
following words be added to the Tenth Amendment:
   "Whether a power is one reserved to the states or to the people, shall be
decided by the Courts."
   This incredible proposal, the transfer of state power to the federal
Courts, should sound a clear alarm to any legislator who thinks that the
Leavitt-CSG "Conference of the States" is intended to "restore balance to
the state-federal relationship."
   According to constitutional attorney Peter D. Lepiscopo of San Diego,
"the danger is that the Conference will decide to make "application" to
Congress to convert itself into a constitutional convention. His
recommendation is that the following limiting language be inserted into the
"Resolution of Participation."
   BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Pennsylvania's participation in any
Conference of the States shall not be interpreted or construed to be for the
purpose of amending or proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
United States.