Con Con Network

8/9/2019 Con Con Network

1/8

The Goh-GonNetwork.ffiT,$pouterfii[networ(tfiat itguiiirr7 our nation nto anpu cprutitutiona[ onasltioru

$ C uet for the con-con enginei - comesfromconservativeswhoare understandably fi-ustratedbythe nation's endlessspiral ofhightaxes,budget deficits. and re-electedliberals.Conservatives want to amend theConstitution in order to force Con-gress to balance the budget and tolimit congressional terms. Recentattempts to get a budget amend-ment through Congress have failed,and the chances ofgetting congress-men to limit their own terms arejustabout nil. Ilt these two issues lie thepretext for resorting to a little knownclause in the Constitution, whichprovides an alternative route for in-troducing amendments.The two routes are established inArticle V. First, following the usualmethod, Congress may proposeamendments by a two-thirds vote ofeach house.Such amendments mustthen be ratified by three-fourths ofthe states, either by their legisla-tures or by special state ratifyingconventions, as directed by Congress.All26 amendments to the Constitu-tionhavebeen proposed in thisway,and all except one havebeen ratifiedby state legislatures. Rati$ring con-ventions were mandated for passageof the TWenty-first Amendment (re-

-ffi@-*a-.aa-e 44 F - ' - ,*ae;_#Z"peal of Prohibition) because statelegislators, according to Congress."did not accurately reflect public at-titudes toward Prohibition.'Second, following the little-larownavenue, two-thirds of the states mayapply to Congress to call a federalconvention (con-con) for the pur-pose of proposing amendments.Notice the difference between thetwo amendment routes. The first,originating through Congress, is acontrolled procedure. Congress de-liberates; the states ratiSr. In thesecond route, Congress is circum-vented and the states establish theirown deliberative body which is calleda convention. It is conducted not byCongress, which is controlled by theConstitution, but by the peoplewhoare the sovereign designers of this.or any future, constitution. Thepeople are not controlled by Con-gress or rnyoneelse, for there is nohigher earthly authorit5r.A con-con is unique to America. Ina flee society, the people are sover-eign. When the people appoint del-egateso representthem in a con-con.those delegates exercise their au-thority by virtue of powers inher-ent in the people. Such powers gaveus our Constitution at the first Con-vention held in Philadelphia in I 787.

ry,;:::.3:**'4*a***-a.By their adoption of the Article Vconvention route, our founders set aprecedent. and they kept the dooropen to future generations. Theirfirst government under the Articlesof Confederation had lasted only l1years, and they did not know thefuture of the new one. If they hadmade mistakes that Congresswouldnot correct. they wanted the people

to have the convention route forcorrecting them. If the central gov-ernmentwere to oppress them, theywanted the people, through theirstate governments. to retain themechanism of a constitutional con-vention to recover their liberties, andto bind down the central govern-mentif necessary.Those powers areclear. The convention principle isintrinsic to self-government.Since 1789. nearly 4OOapplica-tions for a con-con have been ffledwith Congress. None has ever beenheld. Upon this uncharted higfrwaythe con-con network is drMng thenation. An unwary America now bav-els at full throttle without a warningsiien and wittrout brakes toq/ard tl"efirst Article V convention in ournation's history.

THE NEWAMERICAN FEBRUARY


2/8

Wehave a solemn duty to compre-hend the extraordinary powers of aconvention and to understand howthe states have been induced to fol-low this route. We must also assesswhat our fellow citizens really knowabout the ConstiLution and try toforesee the outcome of a modernmedia-inlluenced convention. Andfinally, we need to examine the con-con network, its operatives and itsmotives. Failure to foresee the des-tiny of this movement could lead toconstitutional damage from whichour republic may never recover.How lt BeganWe are on the verge of a conslitu-tional convention becausenew callswere promoted in the mid l97os.Ambitious individuals organZed astate-by-state campaign urging leg-islators to pass resolutions petition-ing Congress to call a convention.They needed calls from two-thirds(34) of the states. Their purpose,they said, was to pass an amend-ment requiring the federal govern-ment to balance the budget. Thosefust resolutions passed easily. andthe con-con movement soared qui-etly through the nation from 1975until l98O with scarcely a sound ofopposition.Lgislators were pressured by re-publican leaders and professionallobbyists to pass these resolutions.All attention was focused on theurgency of acting immediately toaddress our nation's financial prob-lems. Many state legislators unwit-tingly passed he convention calls onthe basis of arguments for fiscalreform, nothing more.The ease with which these billswere passed is a clear indication ofAmerica's lack of constitutionalsavq/. Few state legislators seemedto realize that our naUon's disas-trous budget deficits had accruedout of disregard for constitutionalrestraints in the first place. Hadgoverrrment been held only to itsconstitutionally authorized activiUes,no budget crisis could have devel-oped.Our state officials have been soldthe idea that their convention callsare the only "pressure" Congressfears and that such a resoundingvoice from the states will force them

Lewis Uhler James lavidsonAmerica's rofessionaloon-oonartists

can stop playing con-con games. Ittakes two-thirds of both houses ofCongress o proposean amendment,but only 5l percent to simpty bal-ance the budget.We the People...Surveys indicate that Americansknow very little about the Constitu-tion. Public opinion polls show thatmany citizens mistakenly believe itguarantees them a public educationand free health care. Others believethat our national charler esLablishesEn$ish as the official language andstaLes hat *all men are created equal"{a phrase actually found in the Dec-laration of Independence).Someevenbelieve that the Constifution can besuspended by the President in timeof war. But perhaps most alarmingof all is the report that nearly half ofall Americans think the Constitu-tion contains the Marxist declara-Uon, "From each according to hisability. toeach according o his need.The reality of a new conventionand its serious implicationswere notofficially realized until petitions wereunearthed in Washington fi ing cabi-nets. desks, and briefcases.For thefirst IOO years con-con calls wereaddressed to the State Department.During the last century, however,there had been no consistent proce-dure at the nation's Capitol for keep-ing track of convention calls receivedfrom the states.On April 26. 1978, for example.the Kansas Legislature passedareso-luUon calling for a con-con and sentit to James Eastland, chairman ofthe Senate Commitlee on the Judi-ciary. He forwarded it to Birch Bayh.chairman of the Senate Sub-Com-mittee on the Constitution (SSCC).Bayh gave t to the committee's chiefclerk and deputy staffdirector, LindaRogersKingsbury, alongwith anotelrom Senator Eastland. to determineits proper disposiUon and find outhow many such calls exist.By mid-1979. the number onrecord for the Balanced BudgetAmendment was 30, just four peti-tions short of the 34 needed toauthorZe the nation's first constitu-tional convention under Ar[icle V.Stallmembers of the Senate Sub-committee on the Constitutionalerted their overseers to the prob-

to act. Advocates of con-con callsclaim in fact that a convention willnever be held. They offer assurancesthat when Congrlss sees 33 peti-tions (oneshort of the required num-ber) they will hurriedly propose thewanted amendment, so that it canbe raUfied n the safe and customaryway. ln fact, they insist that Con-gresswill never allow a con-con evenif or when all 34 of the requiredstates apply.The idea that Congress will notcall a convention, even if two-thirdsof the states apply. is in itself a ratheraudacious assumption. Article Vclearly statesthat the "Congressshallcall a convention"when those termsare met. Alexander Hamilton left nodoubt about the role of Congress inthat regard. Writing rn The Federal-rst #85, he said. *The words of thisarlicle are peremptory. The Con-gress shall ca.ll a convention. Noth-ing in this particular is left to thediscretion of that body." Yet statelegislatorsare told theyhave nothingto lear because Congress fears aconvention and will not call one.On the face of it, the proposedbalanced budget amendment is ab-surd. AII such proposedamendmentsfloating around Washington allowCongress o spend more than it takesin any time 6O percent of our law-makers vote to do so. Yet debt-limitceilings are being raised by votes of70 to 80 percent. Sponsors of bal-anced budget amendments boastsupport from largemajorities ofeachhouse. This illustrates the hypocrisyof the entire movement. A simplemajority of 218 in the House ana Stin the Senatecan balance the budgettoday and, if all of the House andSenateco-sponsorsare sincere, theycan simply vote against any moredeficits immediately without endan-gering the ConstiLution. lndeed, they

THENEW AMEBICAN FEBRUARY10, 1992


3/8

, em'ofan impending eon-corr and tothe many serious questions thatneeded to be answered. Plans weremade to conduct Senate hearings toexaminethreebills (S.3, S. 52O, and7LO) ntended to establish con-p:ccedures. On September 29,.,,1979.t1re enate hearings were be-,,91.ln.Many of the nation's top legal,;seholarsand seerts on the Consti-;tutioRwere invited to testify. SenateSubcommittee members Orrin Hatch(who introduced S. f 71O)and StromThurmond spoke in favor of the con-vention route, while Constitutionscholars from the majorliawschoolswere soundly opposed to the idea.Theywere fearftn of the dangers of aconvention and its potential to alterour system of government. Le theend. ttre subcommittee did not sup-port any of the procedures bills.The Reagan Perception

To many state legislators the elec-tion of Ronald Reagan was a logicalalternative to a constifu tional amend-ment, and therefore by 1980 thecon-con engine had nearly run out ofsteam. The election ofRonald Reaganwas seen optimistically as the end todeficit spending, and the entire bud-get issu-eseemed to be headed for apermanent solution. Sheer momen-tum of the con-con movement, how-ever. carried Alaska onto theconvention bandwagon by June of1981. Then, two years later, underintense pressure strangiely emanat-rrg from the White House, Missourisubmitted a petition, bringingAmerica to 32 convention calls. justtwo short of the fateful number thatwould trigger a convention.Among the first pro-con-con voiceswas Senator Orrin Hatch. who intro-duced a con-con procedures bill{S. lTlO) in 1979. The Republican,majorityin the 1981 Senateadvanced'Hatch to chairman of the SenateSubcommittee, where his S. lTlOwas resubmitted as S. 2O4.His com-mittee promptly sentit to the Senatefloor, where it was defeated. Themeasure was draft.ed, actually, byHatch's legal advisor. Steven J.,lVIarknan, who served as counsel tothe tenator on the Subcommittee.Over ttre years this bill has beenrb$r on-con advocates as proofthatCoqFess will control a modern

convention. and the draft has beenused to persuade sl,ate le$slatorsthat they have nothing to fear.Can Congress enforce limits on aconstitutional convention? Not anymore than the creature can binddown its creator. It must be remem-bered that our Constitution is theproduct of the Convention of 1787.That first Convention created Con-gress.The inherent powers of thosedelegates were exercised to repealthe Articles of Confederation. ourfirst constitution, and to create anentirely new government. WhileAmericans have enjoyed unprec-edented freedom and prosperity re-sulting from our first Convention, inthe words of James Madison, we"should tremble for the results of asecond."In their efforls to allay fears andprevent the withdrawal of state reso-lutions, Senator Orrin Hatch, Sena-tor Larry Craig, Senator Robert Dole,and others have far overstated thevalue of Hatch's S. 204. This bill hasneverbeen passed.At no time in ourhistory, in fact, has le$slation beenadopted to establish the rrles for aconvention. Yet convention advocatesrefer confidently to a non-existentlaw and offer assurances that it willgovern the affairs of a con-con.History documents clearly those"Iimits" that were placed upon del-egates to the 1787 Convention. His-tory also records the power theyexercised to trash those rules. Noenforceable limits worked then, andno con-con procedures law could beimposed on a convention today. Thepeople call the convention throughthe states. Both the people and thestates created, and are superior to.the federal government and all of itsbranches - legislative, executive,and udicial. A convention could andmost certainlywould exceed ts man-date as it did in 1787, regardless ofany oatJrs or covenants that may beused to bind its delegates. Thesevital principles are unknown to thegeneral public, but are ignored andcovered up by cerlain elected offi-cials and "anti-tax" groups that com-prise the powerful con-con network.The Srnart ALEGThe American Legislative Ex-change Council (ALEC), a private

SenatorOrrin latch:Noreal documentationorgarrization of conservative statelegislators. was founded to sharelegislation and strategies that havesucceeded in curbing the teftwardcourse of America. But ALEC hasnow become an active proponent ofthe current rush into a con-con, astrange aberation for an orgariza-tion with an otherwise honorabletrack record. It is dominated at theleadership level by the RepublicanNational CommitteeALEC is placingAmerica in gfavedanger by promoting and misrepre-senting the convention route. ALEClawyers pursue this cause along avein that is totally out of step withhistory and the best current legalscholarship. In con-con hearingsaround the nation, they assert that aconvention can be limited to a speci-fied subject as set forth in the stateresolutions. They have invented a"seH-destruct" clause that appearsin the most recent state resolutionsto the effect that, if any topic otherthan a balanced budget should beintroduced. then the petition wouldbe "automatically rendered null andvoid." By such logic a passengercould cancel his flight after his air-craft takes off.ArticleVleaves to the state lqis-latures one power and one powronly: call a convention, nothing[xxe.No additional language in the reso-lution has arry meaning becauseorrethe convention opens, the corwerr-tion makes its own rrles and setsitsown a{enda. A null and void clauseis totally null and void- It is a deceit-fin phrase thal 5rlls legislatorc tnto a

THENEWAMERICAN FEBRUARY10,


4/8

false confidence over the con-conlegislaticn they are erpected to sus-tain.Perhaps the most abused reas-surance given by con-con advocatesgoessomething like this, 'You legis-lators have nothing to be afraid of.The convention merely proposesarnendments. If you dont like whatthey come up with, or if you think itwill endanger the Constitution, youcan kill it in the ratification process."Then they add this clincher: "Doesanyone really think 38 state legisla-tures lthree-fourths of the stateslwould rati$r a bad amendrrient?"Such seemin$y safe sophistry hasa big loophole: The State legislatorswho called for the amendment maynever see t a8iain.A convention hasthe power to change the rules ofrati{ication,just aswas done n 1787.Congresscould send it out to specialstate rati$ring conventions. jusl aswas done h 1787, and was doneagain in 1933 to rati$r the repeal ofProhibition. Furllrer, the convention,especially if it makes changes thatthe legislatures are not likely to ac-cept. may send it to the governors torati$. or to Congress. or to a blueribbon committee of eryerts at theBrookings Institute. The point is thatno one gets off the con-con planeonce tis airbome. There s noway toguarantee that our Constitution willmake a safe landing or arrive at theplace designated.

:4 e - ^F i F " . i " { l l - y : -- v' \

PresidentReagan:He hought heConstitutionmay have o be re-writtenDubious DocumentsNotwithstanding the precedent ofhistory, the con-con network is un-daunted. In their effort to keep con-vention calls alive. con-con advocateshave resorted to some verv dubious"endorsements. " Senator ilatch, forexample, typically displays an offi-cial-looking document indicating thatthe U.S. Department ofJustice sup-ports the con-con movement, hasfaith in his convenLion proceduresbill, and agrees that aeon-con canbelimited by the authority of Congress.It is an impressive documerrt to besure, but its authorship needs to beunderstood, The man who draitedHatch's S. 204, Steven J. Markman,resigned as a legal aide to the Sena-tor. and in 1987 entered the Depart-ment ofJustice as AssistantAttornevGeneral in the Office of Legat Poliqi,whereupon he promptly' authorizedaresearch paper to endorse theworkhe had authored for Hatch. His 51-page report has the appearance ofofficial support for the conventionroute, yet is in fact Markrnan's owndefenseof the legislationhe draftedearlier for the Senator. It is neitherauthorized by, nor is it an officialposition of. the Justice Deparlment.Another overratedpaper is a I 974study conducted by a specia l com-mittee of the American BarAssocia-tion. Hatch, Craig. ALEC lawyers.and others make frequent referenceto this in state le$slative hearingsand cite it as proof that their move-ment has the blessing of the ABA.Ine report states:

We agree ... that Congresshas the power to establish pro-cedures which would limit aconvention's authority to a spe-cific subject matter where thelegislatures of two-thirds of thestates seek a convention lim-ited to that subject.That looks like a very positive

statement, but it is taken entirelyout of context and is based on theimpossible premise that Congresswill enact legislaton to establishguidelines that lirnit a convention. Itviolates the fundamental con-conprinciple tllat the people have thepower to circumvent Congress. Ourfounders intended the con-con routefor single or multiple amendmentsand alsc, if necessary, for maJorfundamental revisions. GeorgeWashington recognized that theamendmentavenue extends even tochanging the separation of powers ilneeded. In his FarewellAddress, hestated: "If, in the opinion oftlre people,the distribution or modification ofthe constituflonal powers be in anyparticularwrong, let it be coreetedby an amendment in the way whichthe Constitution designates." Redis-tributing the powers of governmentwould constitute a sweeping, ifnotawholesale, structural "tt.t !..The oft-cited ABA report is anivory tower view of a constitutionand of legislation tl:at does not exist.In a recent letter from their Govern-mental Affairs Office, sig3red bS. Di-rector Rohert D. Evans, the ABAstated: ryfile Ameri,ean Bar Associa.tton has nat consldered the iseuerofa balanced budget amendrnent, andhas taken no position cn that issue,pro or con.The Tuming PointIn l98l Kingsbury resigned asexecutive secretar5r for the SSCCand set up shop in a Washingtonoffice o fight the con-con movement.Her new organization, Citizens toProtect the Constitution (CPC),cameto life through a paradoxical array ofendorsements, including formerPresident Jimmy Carter, fo-rmerSu-preme Court Justice Arthur J,Goldberg, former Secretary of De-fense Melvin R. Laird, Harvard lawprofessorLawrence Tribe. and a hostof other, mostly liberal, luminaries.Her efforts to bring the left and rightinto a sin$e-issue coalition to pro-tect the Constitution were remark-ably successful. She obtained formalanti-con-con resolutions from thetcague of Women Voters. the DARthe AFL-CIO, ttre American legion,the National Association of Univer-sityWomen, theVeterans of ForeignTHE NEW AMERICAN FEBRUARY


5/8

lV'ars, Common Cause, Ea$e Fo-rum, People for the American Way,and the John Birch Society. to namebut a few.Linda RogersKingsbury maintainsan around-the-clockwatch on all 50states in order to curtail con-conresolutions that may be draft.edun-der any pretext.By 1984 it became clear to everyintelligent conservative that theReagan Administration was neitherconserwative nor frugal. This realiza'tion was important to the con-connetwork. It rekindled the phonybud-get amendment fire and gave ttreAlEC/Republican axis new energ/.This time, however, con-con advo-cates were very disappointed. Theycould not get the necessary wo morecalls from the remaining 18 statesbecause the light of trr.th had begunto penetrate those legislative cham-bers. CPC had delivered thousands,ofarlicles to the statecapitols. Thosein the 32 'called- statei were urgdto withdraw their resolutions; th-osein the other I 8 states were wamed ofthe intrinsic dangers of a con-conand urged not tojoin in the caln:gofa convention. Those early activitiesof CPC held offnew state calls whileinformed conservatives got their acttogether.

Kingsburykeepsa 2tl-hourwatch on statelegislationhatcalls or acon-conKingsbury, having access to awealth of inside information on t}econ-con issue. apprised PhyllisSchla{Iy, whose corps of former ERAwarr:iors comprised the first formi-

dable opposition on a state-by-statebasis. Shortly thereafter, the JohnBirch Society came to the assistanceof this extraordinary coalition in thecrucial efforL o hold off anv new callsand to promote the withdrawal ofstanding calls. The effort was en-tirely unique. Ns matter what one'sbeliefs, the coalition had literaturekeyed to his oum philosophy andendorsed by his own national he-

roes, both left and rlgtrt. '. ,In 1985, the fifst withdrawal billwas attempted in Maryland. kgisla.tors &eely.confessed to having actedha*tily by pa$sing their earlier legis-lation, and assured their constitu-ents that they would not opposeeffurts to kill the con-con call.Strangely, this withdrawal bill wasnever passed. In 1986, similar: at-tempts'were made in nine state$t0withdraw previous conventi


6/8

hion,but are the res'rtt of shamefirlof it. No amendment couldthatwill correct ttre prob-em of public ignorance. Thatiswhyfraud is so dangerousnd why it is crucially importantheArticleVdoorlockedtiglrt at this time in our nation'snetwork seeks po\Merwants to seize it while AmericaJames Madison had the properof an Article V convention. Be

Strom Thurmond flew home to res-cue South Carolina's con-con call.Larry Craig was sent home to saveldaho's call. Orrin Hatch hurriedback to Utah. JesseHelms dashed into North Carolina to rescue thatstate's call. They begged their statelegislators not to rescind. "We needthese resolutions. They are the onlyhopewehave to save henation.fromfinancial collapse. Please hold theline. We must not send the wrongsignals toWashinggon. Pleasedo notdesert the President. The Presidentneeds your support." Special meet-ings were held. Republicans held acaucus in everytaqgcted state. warn-ing any who would not stand firrnagainst the withdrawal legislationthat their political careers were onthe line. Nearly every such bill sailedcomfortably through the first housebut met an impenetrable wall ofopposition in the second - opposi-tion marshaled by solid brass fromDC, including phone calls from theWhite House.Victory in DixieFive years had passed with nonew calls when, Ar f988, our in-trepid con-con opponents mademajor breakthroughs by capturingwithdrawal resolutions in two states:Alabama and Florida. The Alabamawithdrawal was guided carefullythrougft the legislature by a memberof the John Birch Society field staff.Gordon Vanderkooi, and his wifeGloria. Their tireless effort and tact-firl managementresulted inthe fustgreat victory in this effort to protectour Constitution.In Florida success came throug;ha statewide effort united under theSave The Constitution Committee,chaired by Gene and Rita Kreht. alsoBirch Society members. A veritablearmy of spokesmen from state andnational organizations testified inthe hearings, and their local mem-bers sent thousands of letters toFlorida legislators ur$ng them towithdraw their convention call.The amendment professionalswere stunned by the loss of those twostates. One of the most seasoned ofthe con-con advocates is JamesDavidson of the National TaxpayersUnion. He rushed to Florida at theI lth hour and placed advertisements

in the major newspapers accusingthe assenting legislators ofnotwant-ing a balanced budget. His offensivetactics bacldred.In Alabama. the Republican gov-ernor vetoed the rescission bill aftera pleading personal call from Presi-dent Reagan; nevertheless, the Ala-bama legislature prompfly killed theveto with a super-majorityvoting tooverride the governor's action.Another banner year followed in1990 with the withdrawal ofl,ouisiana's I 978 con-con call. Muchof this effort was carried out by aformer Birch Society member,Gardiner Rogers.who made two tripsfrom his home in Pennsylvania totrrersuade egislators in I-ouisiana toreview their prior action and to re-scind it.In f 989, the Assembly of the Stateof Nevada expunged its conventioncall, concluding that it was inducedbyfraud. The basis of the fraud wasthe assurance made in 1979 that aconstitutional convention could belimited to asingle subject. While theone-house action does notwithdrawNevadas call, it is highly significantas a character gauge of the overalleffort to call a convention. All 32states that called for a conventionhad been fied to in that regard.Down, But Not OutThe bicentennial plot to make radi-cal changes in our form of govern-ment did not succeedas the con-connetwork had hoped. The networkhas not obtained new calls sinceI 983 and. becauseof the three with-drawals, was rolled backto 29 states.actualty below the 1979 level Thevigilance and hard work of individualcitizens armed with simple truthhad frustrated the networkand senttheir key architects back to the draw-ingboard. Three strategic errors con-fronted them:l. They lobbied for state-by stateresolutions only at the legislativelevel with litfle or no public aware-ness: therefore their efforts could be'lun{obbied" by a small number ofinformed citizens employing the samestrateEIi;2. Regardlessofwidespread gen-eral ignorance, ttrere is an instinc-tive public aversion to the idea oftampering with the U.S. Constitu-

the Constitution was ratifieda few state officials wereabout certain parts of it,was under way to re-convention. Madison wasby the mere suEiestion ofln a letter to Georgehe said:Under all these circum-stances it seems scarcely to be

presumable that the delibera-tions of the bodv could beconducted in harmony, or ter-minate in the general good.Hav-ing witnessed ttre difficultiesand dangers orperienced by thefirst Convention which as-sembled under wery propitiouscircumstance, I should tremblefor t]le resr,rltof a Second....Madison certainly did not meulcornrention part ofArticle V

never to be used. Btrt he wiselywhen not to use it. The yearnot agood time; and today,is far worse. Anyoneclearly at tlle general climatetime must tremble at the verya second comrention.TroubleIn f 987, withdrawal efforts wereand the con-con networkState legislators saidto rescissions, while nationalleaders said no. Wheredebates were lost, it waspolitics, not reason.bills appearedpass in Idaho. Utah, me-Georgia, Florida, North Caro-South Carolina, Republicanand senators werelobbying rgainst these stateat home. absent fromsessions in Washington.

THENEWAMERICAN FEBRUARY10,


7/8

Fita and GeneKrehlFlorida GardinerRogersLouisianaWhilemanycitizensworked dlligently o acccmpllsh he three statewithdrawals,hosepigturedabwewerepartieularly lstinguished y their andmark ictories.Patriotic itizens rmedwith ruthconstituteAmerica's reatestweapon gainst he enemies f our Constitution.

Gloria and Gordon VanderkoiAlabama

tion; and3. They failed to recognize that asuccessful single-issue coalition ofconservative and liberal opposition.standing firmly on the basis of pa-triotism. could be mounted.Their first house was built onsand. lt was a secret to all except thenetwork and its emissaries. Likemagicians. they flashedbudget cardsand palmed con-con cards. Whenasked to lay all the cards on thetable, they could not produce a fulldeck. Confronted wittr evidence ofsuch brazen fraud. the averagechar-latan would wilt with embarrass-ment. Not sowith the con-conbudgetcrowd. The same relatively small butaudacious cabal ttrat instigated 13years of treachery and deceit hasnow designed a new conventionroute. It is called the Limitation ofTerms.

Goming to TermsThis idea has werything. It buildspublic support prior to seeking po-litical support. While directed fromWashington. the action is carriedout in cities. counties and states,with scarcely a hint of a con-con.Aided by a veritable flood of newsar[icles, television programs, edito-rials, speakers, and local limitationof terms committees, every electiveoffice is hounded. Spokesmen go to,the city council, the mayor. the sher-iff. counbycommissioners, and eventhe dog-catcher, urging them to limittheir Lerms of office. Most of thesefine public servants, who often serveonly as a matter of civic duty. agreethat others should take their turnand are witting to pass local term-limit laws.At the state level, however, t is notso simple. Regardless ofwho maybe

for or against term limits. a changeso fundamental to fieedom as deny-ing citizens their riglrt to vote forcandidates who have served for acertain number of terms requires anamendment to the s[ate constitu-tion. This is done by voter initiative,and has alreadybeen accomplishedin Colorado. Oklahoma, and Califor-nia. Millions of dollars are nowbeingspent in other states to promote theamendment of their state constitu-tions in order to limit the terms ofstate legislators.Whf Remember, this is only stepone. The network is now attemptingto create the appearance of popularsupport for its limitation of termspretext. Meanwhile, there is anotherelement of the new desigp aboutwhich we have said nothing: target-ing Congress. No citizen can escapethe relentless barrage of news and

Thisman ied ntestimony efore heNevadaegislature.Henowworks orLewisUhler's roup.

Lobbvist Christian admitsb'ing' to r\:evadal* gslatorsryiHrrnres rffin*n li\,e,hJohnB.irch ocletyccusdfi,y "no-.y tu l3iil;lhdrd-ihd$r- meof beine dupe l thecomnun- A seorcht 6tg d qLF--fref--ef-ii - r ioOUyfg lor tho fis, my honrewris r*ked and win enlorcemsnt rcclt b I fnr'if iitq"d;-fid ffi ;A douislorebroken.\T13f1' E lryll1m: t:gr:"=il,&.-ld;%-;-ii;fr1E- -- th6 huor," he no16eor6o.rubrrbf F-cDmmittc last week when he testl- Itotq tr.u Ntyrq *.vu,Et -- - - q=neg rfirt a ,"rxlr-uru."r tnemDcr wac -lim'n*nywyJtot*tuil!:ir1i,'r',"sififfi.r*:n;; ; Fffitrllffts.'sd: f,tlrffUt*tr

THENEWAMERICAN FEBRUARY


8/8

commentary levied against membersof Congress, especially those whomake a profession of politics andho are reelectedterm after term. Itis the long-term entrenched incum-ent who ls responsible, they say, for99 percent of the nation's problems.name it: high taxes,budget defi-its. trade imbalance. S&L scandals,bribery, and wery form ofAfter two terms in theand six terms in the House,are suposed to believe that some-snaps, and these guys just gocon-con network has de-war on America's incorrigiblein Washington. But theis not wertly pressing for aconvention; not yet,is.First, there is much work to beCity and county term limits$ve impetus to stateterm limits.the legislators in at least 32limited their own terms,have had their tenure cut short byinitiative, there will be a lot ofhangingwith no place to go. Incum-Washington will look uglierever, and the heat will be on.empt. Entrenchedof the Jim Wright mold willMore conservatives likeHumphrey and Steve Symmswere retiring anyway) will an-that 12 years is enough.

From Above & BelowWhen the home base is suffi cientlyso that it cannot be "r.rn-the U.S. Congress win fallintense pressure to limit itsTo do so, the Constitu-have to be amended. Justyour representative and sena-confirm the truthstatement. For the first time inthey are reading the Con-Article I, Section 2 saysmembers are chosen bypeople, but it does not timit theof times they can be chosen.the next paragraph, the qualifica-as a representativenothing restricts theirbecause of tenure. Sec-the qualifications for Sen-but holds noprior service. The I Tthleaves to voters the right

to choose their senators without re-stricting the number of times thesame candidate can be chosen.Will two-thirds of both houses ofCongress propose a constitutionalamendment to limit their own terms?The term-limit literature says thatCongress will not resist pressurefrom the states and will then beforced to introduce an amendment.We disagree, and we are confidentthatthosewho reallyrun things alsodisagree. It is the duty of certainmembers of Congress to block allproposed term-limit amendments.Such proposals will not garner thetwo-ttrirds necessar5rn order to pro-ceedwith an amendment in the usualwaybecause these members ofCon-gress will see to it. By refusing toemploy the usual route for an amend-ment to limit their own terms, insid-ers in Congress will deliver to theircounterparts in the network a con-vention on a sifuer platter. If thenetwork's scheme succeeds, thestates will catl a con-con.Thatvery outcome is the purposeof the new anti-incumbent outrageand is at the heart of the big term-Iimit campaigps now underway.The new term-limit pretext is ev-erybit as ridiculous as the balancedbudget amendment. Cit?ens reelectbig sperrders for one of the same twoieasons they reelect all incumbents:out ofignorance or out of knowledge.Either they do not laeow what theyare doing, or they lovesocialist legis-Iation and know who does or doesnot deliverit. There is no needwhat-soever o amend the Constitution. IfAmericans want the welfare statethey will vote for it if they do not,they will clean house at election timeand no election fieedom will be losteither by the incumbents or by thevoters. The only cure for a bad Con-gFess s an informed electorate.Citizens must act immediately toprotect tJreConstitution. Ifthe term-limit machine continues at its highlyaccelerated level it will create a con-con situation that could destroy theConstitution. Also, if the balancedbudget vehicle is rebuilt and re-fu-eled, t too will lead to a con-con thatcould destroy the Constitution. Bothmachines are driven by the samenetwork. The Constitution is theirtarget.

Where then is or-rropporLunity tostop ttris machine and to prevent adisaster? Considering the widespreadignorance of the public in generaland the power and momentum ofthe con-con movement at this point,what hope do we have to rescue theConstitution and preserveour liber-ties?Given tl.e instinctive patriotism ofmiddle America, we lcrow that amajority of our citizens will makeintelligent decisions, even unselfishdecisions, when they are equippedwith enough correct information. Wedo not expect our fellow citizens tobecomeconstitutional scholars, butwe do hope to see the restoration ofa simple philosophy that had, for thefirst 1O0years. protected our liber-ties and our Constitution: Ttrc es-sence oJJreednm is the timitatton oJgouemmenL Just that simple per-ception constitutes the difference be-tween liberty and bondage.Our task is difficult but clearlvachievable; indeed its accomplish-ment is imperative. The essence offreedom is not the limitation of thepower of our citizens to vote, or ofincumbents to run for reelection.The act of limiting the franchise au-tomatically transfers power to gov-ernment, not to the people.We mustnot lose sight of this fundamentalpremise; we must act immediately toignite America's instinctive patrio-tism. Remember, truth is incrediblypowerfirl. lt destroys propaganda andreachesbeyond mere hu man ability.God has never failed to bless a naUonwhose God is the Lord, and whosepatriots propagate the truth. I

THENEWAMERICAN FEBRUARY10, 1992