From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ The following text is provided courtesy of no-con-con@webcom.com in the hopes that more people will join the fight against the COS or Conference of the States, which is a vieled constitutional convention call. State Senator Duke came to Pennsylvania last week to testify in front a Pennsylvania State House Committee to discuss the COS resolution that has already passed the Pennsylvania Senate on voice vote only 47 yea to 2 nea. This resolution which will be posted at a later date, is going through the state houses of almost all 50 states. Many states have passed this in both houses, and some have only gotten it through one house. In Pennsylvania, we have derailed this con-con call only temporarily and it has only happened because dedicated people have taken the time to educate their representatives who after being told the truth, took their name off of any sponsoring material. INFORMATION and the free flow of the truth are paramount in this battle. And this is a battle. Read the text of what Senator Duke has to say. He was given 5 minutes to speak his mind in Pennsylvania even after flying all night to be at the hearing. To subscribe to the no con con list, send email with word subscribe in body of message to: no-con-con-request@webcom.com or just reply to this message by email and request me to put you on the list. Howard L. Bloom ************************************************************************* January 23, 1995 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 There are three states which have rescinded their request.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 ************************************************************************* Send comments or private communication to list moderator/admin Howard L. Bloom at pc-man@netaxs.com. All posts are the responsibility of the poster. Howard L. Bloom assumes no liability for the content of any message per UCC 1-207 with explicit reservation of rights.. To unsubscribe or subcribe send email to no-con-con-request@webcom.com put nothing in the subject line and in body put either unsubscribe or subscribe. No-con-con is dedicated to preserving our unalienable rights! There is also a digest version available, send email with word subscribe to: no-con-con-digest-reqeuest@webcom.com. ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer. All files are ZIP archives for fast download. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)