Editor: Janine Hansen
Vol. 36 No. 6
Did you renew your subscription in June? If not please renew this month.
Every summer we ask people to renew their subscriptions to the Newsletter. If you check your label you will see the last date you contributed. We depend on your continuing support. Thanks, Janine Hansen
The “Taxed Enough Already”--TEA Parties have been a great success!
Nevada and National Eagle Forum have participated in the Tea Parties nationwide and encouraged everyone to participate. In Nevada on April 15th the Tea Party with over 3,000 participating was the largest demonstration ever witnessed at the Nevada Legislature in Carson City. On July 4th in Reno more than 2,000 people participated in the Tea Party. Janine Hansen, Lynn Chapman and John Wagner of our lobbying team were speakers at the events.
John Wagner, Vice Chairman of the Independent American Party prepared a proclamation which was issued by Governor Gibbons for the May 29th TEA Party in Carson recognizing Tax Freedom Day, which identifies the day Americans have finally paid all of their local, state, and federal taxes. The Proclamation was presented by Assemblyman Ty Cobb to Debbie Landis whose tremendous work lead to the success of the Carson and Reno TEA Parties.
These TEA Party events have been magnificent and successful efforts to remind our elected officials that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Declaration of Independence. We commend all of those who have organized and participated in the TEA Parties statewide in Las Vegas, Carson City, Reno, Fernley, Fallon, Mesquite, and Winnemucca. The TEA Parties have been organized and promoted by many national and local organizations. This is one of their great strengths.
The “Nationwide Tea Party Coalition” is pushing a Call for a Constitutional Convention
We have and do support the TEA Parties! However, there is now a national movement to get the TEA Parties to adopt a strategy to push for a Call for a Constitutional Convention. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways to amend the Constitution. The first way, which has been used exclusively since the Constitution was first adopted, is to have amendments proposed and passed by Congress and then sent to the States for ratification. The Second method provides that two-thirds of the states pass a resolution asking Congress to Call for a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.
Obama-ites Would be Selected as Delegates to a Constitutional Convention
This untried method of amending the Constitution is fraught with potential tragedy and could lead to the complete destruction and rewriting of our Constitution. Eagle Forum has, for over two decades, fought proposals to Call for a Constitutional Convention. To our horror we can just imagine the Obama-ites who would be selected to serve as delegates to such a Convention. Consider their agenda: Number one would be to Repeal the Second Amendment, then they would go on to making the killing of the unborn a constitutional right, we might see the compete loss of our right to property and due process, freedom of worship, free speech, trial by jury and whatever new obamanation you can imagine. There would be no way to hold delegates accountable because they would never have to stand for election.
It is arrogant for any organization or person, such as the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, Fair Tax, talk show host Neal Boortz, or Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University, to think that they would control the agenda of any Constitutional Convention convened while Obamanation is in the White House. Professor Barnett has come up with 10 amendments called the “Bill of Federalism” which he and the National Tea Parties Coalition are promoting. http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com/ Most of Barnett’s amendments have merit, but would never be considered.
Talk Show host Neal Boortz has three amendments he would like to see considered 1) Repealing the 16th amendment (income tax) 2) Repealing the 17th Amendment to return the election of US Senators to the Legislature 3) Term Limits for the U.S. Senators and Congressmen. We support all of these amendments, but we are not willing to risk losing the Constitution for “pie in the sky” politically impossible ideas. John Oxendine and the Fair Tax organization want to repeal the income tax and substitute a national sales tax. There’s no end to the number of possible proposed amendments.
Our Constitution must not be jeopardized by calling a Constitutional Convention which cannot be limited.
Beware of Attacks on the Constitution
Phyllis Schlafly Report, May 2009
Constitutional Convention (Con Con) Is a Terrible Idea
Americans are fortunate to have a written Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we certainly don't need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians do not obey it and liberal judges pretend it is a "living" document that they can re-interpret according to their own social and economic preferences.
Many liberals and globalists don't like our Constitution because it contains built-in stumbling blocks against their goals of big government and even global government. Even some conservative types express irritation with our Constitution when they cannot get Congress to pass the legislation they desire. So, different factions, seeking different goals, have turned to an attempt to use the never-used provision in the Constitution's Article V, which requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it. This is colloquially called a Con Con.
The Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution which governs our nation was held in Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1787 and presided over by General George Washington. Washington and James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, both called the result a "miracle." It has lasted for 220 years, accommodating our great geographic and economic expansion and political problems, while preserving individual liberties. Unlike other countries, after every national election we have enjoyed a peaceful transfer of power.
Over the 220 years, various states have passed hundreds of resolutions asking Congress to call a Con Con, but no single topic ever passed in 2/3rds of the states. Some of those resolutions were for now-obsolete issues such as child labor laws or the direct election of Senators. In the 1960s, there was a movement led by prestigious politicians and academics to get a Con Con to change our form of government to a European-style parliamentary system and eliminate provisions they especially don't like such as the requirement for a 2/3rds Senate vote to ratify treaties.
In the 1970s and 1980s, 32 states passed resolutions calling for a Con Con to consider a federal Balanced Budget Amendment, but the movement could not reach the trigger number of 34. At least 18 states passed resolutions for a Con Con to consider a Human Life Amendment. Other issues that inspired Con Con resolutions were the Line Item Veto, Term Limits for Members of Congress, and abolition of the Electoral College.
At the present time, there is a move in several state legislatures to call a Con Con for the purpose of repealing the 16th Amendment (which allows the Income Tax) and shifting to the Fair Tax (which is a consumer tax). That may or may not be a good idea, but it does not justify the risk of calling a Con Con.
The trouble with a Con Con is that there are no rules in the Constitution or in any law to limit a Con Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates. Congress has repeatedly rejected bills to establish rules or procedures. There is no way to control a Con Con in advance or to require it to consider only one subject. The Article V provision that authorizes the calling of a Con Con refers to considering "amendments" (note the plural).
The Con Con process would be a prescription for political chaos, controversy, confrontation, litigation, and judicial activism. Just about the only thing we can predict with certainty is that the convention could not be secret from the media and the public, as was the original 1787 Constitutional Convention (which met behind closed doors and had no leaks).
Many prestigious constitutional authorities say it is impossible for Congress or state applications to restrict what a Con Con does. The highest authority who has ever spoken out on this subject is the late Chief Justice Warren Burger, who wrote: "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. . . . After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda." (Read the entire Burger letter at http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/ )
Other distinguished professors of constitutional law, both Republicans and Democrats, who say it is impossible to restrict the agenda of a Con Con to one issue, include Charles Alan Wright of the University of Texas, Gerald Gunther of Stanford, Charles Black of Yale, and Walter Dellinger of Duke. They all agree that even if Congress called a Con Con to consider only one issue, the Convention delegates can ignore that instruction, set their own agenda, and make their own rules.
It is not credible that various politically active groups would pass up the chance to try to force a Con Con to vote for their special interests. It's not believable that the powerful forces working to take away our right to own guns would overlook a golden opportunity to eliminate the Second Amendment.
Outside of a Con Con hall, demonstrators would be demanding constitutional changes: gay activists and their opponents,
pro-abortionists and pro-lifers, radical feminists, the environmentalists, gun control advocates, animal rights extremists,
PS Con/Con Article Continued:
D.C. Statehood agitators, those who want to relax immigration and those who would restrict it, mortgage defaulters, and the unions - all demanding consideration of amendments to recognize their asserted rights.
The most influential players in any Con Con would be Big Media giving us round-the-clock television coverage. It would be a bigger media event than a presidential election. The media consider themselves actors in the political process, not merely reporters. The confusion, uncertainty, and court cases involved in a Con Con would make us look foolish in the eyes of the world.
Who would be the delegates elected to serve in a Con Con? Based on the November 2008 election, it is clear that Barack Obama and the Democrats have the on-the-ground grassroots organization to dominate the election exactly as they elected a Democratic majority in Congress.
Article V specifies that, after application by 34 states, Congress is the body that "shall call" a Con Con. That means Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to specify who can be delegates and how they will be elected.
Those who have attended a Republican or a Democratic National Convention know the power of the gavel to ram through predetermined motions and cut off debate. Now imagine a Republican and a Democratic National Convention meeting together - in the same hall at the same time - and you can visualize the pandemonium.
Irresponsible and radical as is the current Democratic Congress, a Con Con would be far worse for many reasons:
There is no public support across America for a constitutional convention. Between 1988 and 2004, at least ten states repealed their earlier Con Con resolutions: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. In March 2009 Wyoming became the 11th state to rescind all of its prior applications.
We don't see any James Madisons, George Washingtons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as was done in 1787, and we should be leery about the politicians who think they can improve on our Founding Fathers. A call for a Constitutional Convention is a terrible idea and should be defeated in every state legislature where it rears its ugly head. END ARTICLE: www.eagleforum.org
* * * * *
ALERT: PASS ID substitute for REAL ID continued from back:
This legislation is
entirely unnecessary because, thanks to the rebellion in the states, the Real ID
Act is already dead. To date, 24 states have enacted anti-real ID bills or
resolutions, and fourteen of those states have passed binding legislation
prohibiting participation in the Real ID program. And the Real ID rebellion is
not over, five states have already passed resolutions or statutes in 2009;
Missouri will likely become the next state to opt out of Real ID if its governor
signs legislation currently before him.
Rather than saving
Americans from the Real ID legislation that they have rejected in such large
numbers, PASS ID would actually rescue the core policies of Real ID at a time
when it is about to die of its own misguided impracticality.
The problems inherent
in Real ID cannot be solved by tinkering around the edges of the act. Instead,
the entire unworkable system must be scrapped and replaced with a system that
does not endanger Americans' privacy and civil liberties, such as a "negotiated
rulemaking" process that brings together stakeholders to hash out wise and
realistic improvements to driver's licenses (such a process was underway before
Real ID shut it down). The PASS ID Act creates more problems than it solves, and
it should not be viewed as a viable alternative to a true repeal of Real ID.
Nevada Families Eagle Forum Newsletter is published 12 times a year. The Subscription price is $25.00.
Warning: Constitutional Convention Threat!
Please renew your subscription.
ALERT: REAL ID gets Face Life and Name Change
After four months of intense lobbying against REAL ID the Nevada Assembly let REAL ID die during the final hours of the Legislature. The death of REAL ID in Nevada was a joint effort by a diverse coalition including Eagle Forum, the ACLU, Gun Owners of Nevada and other organizations. See the info below from the ACLU on the new PASS ID which is nothing more than a Name Change and a Face Lift for REAL ID, which is necessary because 24 states have enacted anti-REAL ID legislation. http://www.realnightmare.org/about/114/ Remember that Gun Owners of America called REAL ID: “an anti-gun monstrosity”.
PLEASE CONTACT: Senator Reid, Democratic Majority Leader at 202-224-3542 &
Senator Ensign (who is a Senator on the Homeland Security Committee) at 202-224-3424
MESSAGE: OPPOSE PASS ID (S. 1261) it’s just a name change & face lift for REAL ID--a national ID card.
Below Background on PASS ID from ACLU: www.realnightmare.com
On June 15, Senator Akaka (D-Hawaii) introduced S. 1261, the "Providing for Additional Security in States' Identification Act of 2009" or the "PASS ID Act," which repeals and replaces the Real ID Act of 2005 with new national requirements for driver's licenses. While this stems from a sincere attempt to fix the unworkable Real ID Act of 2005, PASS ID simply serves as a band-aid on a gaping wound. It actually re-institutes many of Real ID's problems, and in some cases makes them even worse:
· PASS ID would impose the United States' first-ever national identity card system, which would violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking. After a 5-year hiatus to allow for implementation, PASS ID will be required for boarding airplanes in the same manner as Real ID, and over time its use will almost certainly expand to cover other activities necessary to participate in society.
· PASS ID mandates that all identity source documents be copied physically or digitally and retained as long as the license is valid. By creating troves of sensitive documents on millions of individuals, this provision will be a dream for identity thieves.
[ Back to Newsletter Index ] [ Home ]