Time: Wed Jul 09 17:55:52 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA18443;
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 17:33:33 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04707;
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 17:33:14 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 17:33:05 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: LEADERS Insider's Report" July, 1997 (Part 1) (fwd)
<snip>
>
>Subject: IMPORTANT INFO - Fw: LEADERS Insider's Report" July, 1997
> (Part 1)
>
>
>VERY IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
>
>
>The balanced budget argument in Congress is about LOTS MORE than just
balancing the budget. The plan apparently is to get the people so
frustrated on this (or any other important issue they can come up with)
that they will welcome a constitutional amendment, which would require a
constitutional convention (CON-CON), also known as a conference of states
(COS), which, if one were to come about, could cause us to lose our
Constitution ALTOGETHER!! In addition to part 2 of this message, i will
also forward you an article by Jackie Patru (Council on Domestic Relations)
that contains additional important information along the same lines. Our
state legislators do not seem to know what's going on and it is important
they find out right away. Please help get them up to speed ASAP. The
LEADERS message below indicates our time is very short. The enemies of our
Constitution have already come very close to getting the necessary number
of states to agree by using these deceptive tactic
>s.
>
>Never underestimate the adversaries of God and freedom. They will stop at
nothing to try to destroy this nation.
>
> ~ Cynthia
>
>
>
>----------
>From: Leaders@aol.com
>To: leaders-l@logoplex.com; liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
>Subject: [LEADERS] LEADERS' "Insider's Report" July, 1997 (Part 1)
>Date: Monday, July 07, 1997 9:02 PM
>
>*************************************************************************
> THE LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION, DRAFTING,
> EDITING AND RESEARCH SERVICE
> (LEADERS)
> P.O. Box 3245; Frederick, MD 21705
>
>=====PUBLISHER OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP MAGAZINE=====
>
>301-293-0001 Leaders@aol.com
>301-759-1010 Leader Mag@aol.com
> http://logoplex.com/shops/leaders/
>**************************************************************************
>
> American Leadership's
> INSIDER'S REPORT --- July, 1997
>
> Special Promotional Publication
>
> (Hopefully, those active in the movement to restore constitutional
government, who have never before heard of LEADERS, will be encouraged to
discover what our network of supporters is doing. This Insider's Report,
and our other publications, are the vehicles we are using to educate
people. We hope you will find the information contained herein useful.
More information about LEADERS, our legislative research, and other
projects, is contained near the end of this bulletin. We always welcome
your comments and suggestions. REPUBLICATION OF THIS INFORMATION IS
PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED.)
>
>
> BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOLLIES!
>
> Congress would like nothing better than to undo the system of checks
and balances of the Constitution. A "Balanced Budget Amendment" will be,
if the New World Order has its way, submitted to the states for ratification
>in the near future. This is a dangerous and artfully crafted piece of
legislation, and must be stopped.
> A perfect system for balancing the budget is already a part of the
Constitution. Unfortunately it has been ignored since about the time the
Federal Reserve was granted a license to destroy our nation's economy.
>Indeed, our federal budget can never be in balance as long as borrowing is
practiced routinely--and from the Federal Reserve in particular.
> The power of direct taxation described in Article I, Section 2,
Clause 3; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (apportioned direct taxes on
state governments) is the answer to our budgetary woes. However, the day
Congress holds itself accountable to the state legislatures of this nation,
will be the day the spending and borrowing ceases. No doubt about it.
> How do we know this power of taxation was meant for the purpose of
deficit extinguishment?
> When the states were ratifying the proposed Constitution (beginning
in 1787), each state called a convention of its own for that purpose.
Several of the states (NY, NH, SC, RI, NC, and VA) included in their
ratification documents wording similar to the following (taken from the
ratification document of the State of New York):
>
> . . . that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State,
> but when the monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be
> insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then until Congress
> shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess,
> levy and pay the amount of such Requisition made agreeably to
> the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and
> manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that
> in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its
> proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may
> assess and levy this States proportion together with interest at
> the Rate of six percentum per Annum from the time at which the
> same was required to be paid.
>
> When are direct taxes to be laid? When monies coming from Congress'
regular sources (imposts and excises) are insufficient for public needs.
(In other words, when red ink appears!)
> The states ratifying the Constitution recognized the power of
directly taxing them, based on the census (their voting strength in
Congress) was a strictly limited power, only to be used when a serious need
arose.
> This power was used--several times--in our nation's history, and each
state paid its share of the direct taxes levied by Congress on every
occasion--lest the federal revenuers would enter their state and levy and
collect the tax themselves.
> Congress retired the debt accumulated by the Revolutionary War, the
War of 1812, and the Civil War in this manner. (Documentation proving that
fact is found on pages 8-11 of American Leadership Spring 1996
>edition.)
> And this is how deficits are STILL REQUIRED TO BE EXTINGUISHED! That
is, until the seditious Balanced Budget Amendment now parading through the
halls of Congress is adopted and added to our Constitution!
> The B.B.A. is considered a primary weapon for the NWO. Its failure
to be passed out of Congress (earlier this year) will likely be considered
a signal of the "urgency" for a full blown Constitutional Convention to occur,
>whereby such an amendment can supposedly be "proposed" by the states. (In
reality, the B.B.A. is just an excuse to open a convention whereby the
entire Constitution can be modified to more nicely fit into this "New World
>Order.") If it should be passed directly by Congress to the states, and
subsequently ratified, it would bury the method of balancing the budget
carefully crafted by the Constitution's framers. Either way, the people are
>looking straight down the barrel of a gun.
> The tax and spend brigade wants to constitutionally allow "smoke and
mirrors" projections and other accounting malfeasance to be accepted as the
law of the land. And that plan is what this B.B.A. is all about.
> This proposed amendment WOULD NOT balance the budget in any way. It
would simply legalize that, which, although current federal accounting
practice, is flatly forbidden by the terms and conditions of the EXISTING
contract between the states.
> Educating the masses about the fraud of this amendment is a double
edged sword. In defeating this proposed amendment, we can convey to people
the proper relationship between spending and accountability. More
precisely, we can show the proper mechanism for accountability in the year
the money is spent! If there is a "silver bullet" to collapse the NWO,
this is it!
> Yes, levying a direct tax on the states would cause a huge deficit in
state "rainy day funds." Realistically, at current federal spending levels,
the imposition of a direct tax on each state for their share of the federal
deficit
>would deplete every state treasury, and cause a HUGE state tax increase to
make up for the shortfall. The good new is, it would only happen once.
Every state legislature would send forth their troops to tar and feather the
>members of Congress who voted for illegal, unauthorized and/or improper
spending.
> Imagine the governor of California advising the state legislature
that their share of the 1995 federal deficit must be paid within 6 months.
California would be required to come up with 45/435 of the total deficit
>using the Constitutional rule. (California has 45 members in Congress.
Those with the most votes for spending must come up with the most money.
Small states would contribute a proportionately smaller amount, since their
>fewer number of representatives have less say in spending--their
proportional share of the deficit.) It is the rule of representation with
proportional obligation. Taxation and representation are inseparable under
the current constitutional formula--as morally they should be. The rules
change under a B.B.A.. What we need is enforcement of the rule book, not a
change in the rules!
> That would be a very bitter pill for Congress to swallow, as the
members thereof would then be required to answer to their state for the
spending and resultant taxation--exactly the way it was before the creation
of the Federal Reserve system.
> Our problem (since the institution of Federal Reserve control over
our money) is that we have been able to borrow unendingly. We have been
hypnotized by paper money--and the thoughts of never having to pay the
>mortgage.
> The bankers are about to call in the notes--as is evidenced by
numerous warning signs in international financial markets. Restoring both
constitutional money, and honest taxation, is the only formula for "balancing
>the budget."
>
>IDAHO COMMITTEE SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
>DEFEATS IPSEN PROPOSAL TO PROTECT CONSTITUTION
>
> Taking the "quiet" course proved disastrous for supporters of Idaho
State Senator Grant Ipsen's resolution to repeal Idaho's calls for a
Constitutional Convention. Idaho, which has eight standing calls for a
convention dating back to 1901, could have wiped the slate clean by passage
of SCR/HCR 115, offered by Senator Ipsen.
> This extremely well researched and drafted piece of legislation
identified each previous call Idaho made for a constitutional
convention--by both name and date. It further sought to "repeal, rescind,
cancel, nullify and
>supersede" all those previous resolutions; prevent the creation of "legal
chaos" in opening a convention; and to "protect the lives and liberties of
the citizens" by sparing the Constitution from the uncertainties of a
convention.
> Senator Ipsen, along with his supporters, managed to get the bill
through the Senate without any major difficulty. The vote on 26 February,
1997 was an astonishing 30-4 in the full Senate (with one member absent).
> As the bill found its way into the House State Affairs Committee,
Senator Ipsen (and many others) thought it best not to sound any alarms
that would bring down the wrath of the establishment. They were concerned
that publicity would bring with it the big gun-supporters of the proposed
Balanced Budget Amendment. It was feared that folks like Idaho's U.S.
Senator Larry Craig, a major B.B.A. supporter, would twist arms and force a
showdown of loyalty to persona.
> Quietly, with little fanfare or publicity, on 14 March, 1997 the bill
met its demise in the House Committee--never having a chance to be brought
before the full House.
> The vote was a razor thin 10-9 margin. The chairman of the House
Committee, Ron Crane, and another member of that committee, Ruby Stone were
said by sources near the legislature to have remarked that this
>bill would "cut off Larry Craig's legs," and for that reason, they voted
to kill it.
> Interestingly, it is supposed to be the state legislature that
dictates the beliefs and voting patterns of their representatives in the
United States Senate. Apparently, at least in Idaho, the tail is permitted
to wag the dog.
> No better time exists than the present for this type of legislation.
Indeed, with only 34 states needed to call for a convention (see Article V
of the Constitution), and with 30 having made such calls (Idaho included),
this would have been an excellent opportunity for Idahoan statesmen to have
helped pull the plug on a convention by passing the Ipsen resolution.
> 32 states had officially called for a convention, ostensibly to
propose a Balanced Budget Amendment, until Louisiana & Florida passed
rescission resolutions in the late 1980's. (Louisiana passed a "blanket"
resolution--similar to the Idaho measure, whereas Florida only repealed its
call for a "B.B.A. Convention.") Since then, action has been sporadic, and
no other states have either issued calls, nor repealed earlier calls.
> Much information has been distributed by a wide coalition of patriot
groups, and even some from the political left, warning of the dangers of a
convention. This information has effectively blocked passage of Con-con
>calling resolutions in states where the measures have been brought.
> But the forces that want to expose the Constitution to radical
surgery have also been ominous--blocking the passage of rescinding
resolutions--like that issued by the courageous Senator Ipsen. Inquiring
minds
>want to know if Larry Craig had his hands in this matter. And, if he is
sincere in his vocalizing about balancing the federal budget, why does he
vote to increase the limit on the national debt year after year?
> The following State Affairs Committee members voted AGAINST the Ipsen
resolution: Ron Crane (chairman) Bill Deal (co-chairman), Ruby Stone,
Margaret Henbest, Thomas Loertscher, Jeff Alltus, Twila Hornbeck,
>Debbie Field, Jim Jones, Cameron Wheeler. Patriots should immediately
remove these people from their Christmas card list.
> Those who voted FOR the Ipsen resolution (and should therefore be put
ON the Christmas card list) are Delegates: Tippets, Stevenson, Denney,
Ellsworth, Kunz, McKague, Stoicheff, Alexander & Judd. Absent when the
vote was taken were delegates Kjellander and Newcomb--who, if present and
voting in favor, would have turned the vote around. (Where were you when
the Constitution--which you have taken an oath to protect--needed your help
in that committee?)
> So, instead of Idaho being an example of how these types of bills can
be "quietly" passed, it stands as testimony that, in such matters, the
public needs to be made aware of the bill IMMEDIATELY. Because, if our
side knows about it, you can bet it has not gotten past those who have been
trying for decades to open a Constitutional Convention. They have a
wrecking ball ready for the bill of rights--and everything else that
>currently holds the would-be tyrants at bay!
> Both sides must be heard. Unfortunately, in Idaho, the opportunity
is, as least for now, lost.
> (END, PART 1)
>===========================================================
> L.E.A.D.E.R.S. email list: your one-stop legislative
> action list. To subscribe, send an email to:
>
> leaders-l-info@logoplex.com
>
> leave the subject blank, and the body of the message as:
>
> subscribe leaders-l
>
> Be sure to visit our website at:
>
> http://www.logoplex.com/resources/leaders/
>===========================================================
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail