Arizona: Con Con Vote Tuesday.
We need people to testify!
February 10, 2014
Please forward to everyone you know!
ALERT: Article V Bills (Con Con)
VOTE: Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2 p.m., Please attend the HEARING in room HHR1. Justin Olson’s Committee, Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility We need people to testify. If you are not registered to speak you must do so in person in the Lobby of the House on the computer to register to speak. You must do it by noon on Tuesday and be in room HHR1 by 1:15 p.m.
MESSAGE: Vote NO on HB2305, HCR 2017 and HCR 2027 bills enabling an Article V Constitutional Convention. Article V does not limit a convention to one subject but states, “for proposing Amendments.” There is no way to limit an Article V Convention. Arizona gets 38.04% of its state budget from the Federal Government. If Arizona really wants the federal government to balance the federal budget then Arizona should send back all federal money coming into Arizona. Are you as a Legislator willing to refuse the federal money and mandates? Unless you are, an application for a Constitutional Convention for a balanced federal budget or to limit the federal government’s spending is a sham. (or write your own message — more info below).
Most important to CONTACT: Representative Debbie Lesko firstname.lastname@example.org 602-926-5413
CONTACT ALLMembers of the Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility Committee: Please call right away opposing all these bills.
Chairman Justin Olson 602-926-5288 email@example.com
Lupe Contreras 602 926-5284 Lcontreras@azleg.gov (D)
*Debbie Lesko 602 926-5413 firstname.lastname@example.org
David Gowan 602-926-3312 email@example.com
Jonathan Larkin 602 926-5058 firstname.lastname@example.org (D)
Carl Seel 602-926-3018 email@example.com
Steve Smith 602-926-5685 firstname.lastname@example.org (Vice Chairman)
Bruce Wheeler 602-926-3300 email@example.com (D)
Email the Committee:
firstname.lastname@example.org, Lcontreras@azleg.gov, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Article V of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…” Notice that Congress Calls the Convention and will set the rules…not the States.
Question: Why do we think that the Congress that ignores the Constitution now would be any more likely to abide by a new amendment to the Constitution?
This website lists the percentages of state budgets coming from the Federal Government. Highest Mississippi: 45.35% to Alaska 19.97%. This is why a Balanced Budget Amendment won’t work, because the Legislators, conservative or not, will not vote to reject federal funds and mandates.
A Convention cannot be Limited: Former Chief Justice Warren Burger stated: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could mike its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda…”
More Information from Eagle Forum: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/
In 2013, Tim Fleming of Arizona Legislative Counsel had this to say: “We’re in some uncharted territory here (with the Compact for America)…” “A lot of this depends upon what the scope of Art. V of the U.S. Constitution calls for … it’s all we have to work on … this is the legal opinion I have for you: it’s based on the confines of this language only. “ (Meaning Article V.) Later he states “There’s some thinking that when a Convention of this sort convenes under Article V that it has the authority, almost, of a sovereign type of an entity – that it’s not so much a creature of the states any more or a creature of the Congress, but instead, it’s its own thing – it’s a Constitutional Convention. Quoting Rex Lee, former President of BYU and Law Professor, “Anyone who purports to express a definitive view on this subject is either deluded or deluding.”
HB2305: Calls for an Article V Convention for Proposing AMENDMENTS to the U.S. Constitution supposing to enact the Compact for an ineffective Balanced Budget Amendment with options for increasing the debt including allowing the states to authorize it. Since the states receive Billions of dollars in federal money…do you think the politicians in those states will oppose increasing the debt limit? See more below.
Copy of Bill: http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/hb2305p.htm&Session_ID=112
HCR2017: Application for an Article V Convention for a Balanced Budget amendment.
Copy of Bill: http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HCR2017/id/923339
HCR 2027: Call for Article V convention to impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government, limit power and jurisdiction of the federal government and impose term limits.
Copy of Bill: http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HCR2027/id/936240
More on House Bill 2305, The Balanced Budget Amendment HAS NOTHING IN IT THAT SUGGESTS CUTTING BACK ON SPENDING; NEVER REFERS TO THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE ENUMERATED POWERS!!!
Section 1 says that the government will not overspend unless it agrees to overspend and incur debt;
Section 2 seems to legitimize all past and present borrowing, and allow even more. It increases the debt ceiling. It also tells us that a path has been prepared to continue increasing the debt ceiling and allow for deficit spending;
Section 3 is the follow-up to Section 2. It specifies that increases of the debt ceiling will be tied to a ‘single subject’ and that a simple majority of the states will have to approve it. (How many of our states are in debt now themselves? How many states have the guts to insist that the Federal Government abide by the Constitution and insist on upholding the 10th Amendment by refusing federal funds for education for example? What does this do to the separation of powers between the states and the federal government?) What will those single subjects be? How about: The war on Carbon Dioxide? Obamacare? Oil spills and other environmental disasters? More Wars?
Section 4 gives general spending power to the president. It does so by giving him power over what will not be paid. We just saw what President Obama did with this power by closing the National Parks, closing the white house, threatening not to pay soldiers, government contracts, taxpayer refunds, social security checks, etc. WE DO NOT WANT THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE AND THE SWORD.
Section 5 will destroy the middle class in America through higher taxes in two ways: raising income tax rates with a 2/3 vote OR with a simple majority vote Eliminating Tax Exemptions, Deductions, And Credits! If Congress is too “chicken” to do that, it can replace the income tax with a national sales tax, using a simple majority vote.
Section 6 gives a very narrow definition of debt. How about other kinds of financing? Can the government do sale/leasebacks of government buildings or national parks and not call it debt?
Section 6 also reminds us again about impoundment. What does that mean? “General Revenue Tax” means any income tax, SALES TAX (this would be new), OR VALUE-ADDED TAX (tax on every step of production, also new) by the government of the U.S. excluding imports and duties.”
I WOULD THINK MANY LEGISLATORS WOULD BE VERY EMBARRASSED TO HAVE SIGNED ONTO THIS LEGISLATION.
- Some Thoughts on Article V, by Tom DeWeese