February 8, 2016
Eagle Forum and Andrew Schlafly
Oppose the Compact for America
Slick presentations and statements by supporters of the Compact for America falsely imply that Eagle Forum and I somehow support their flawed proposal. Their assertions are wrong.
I did not provide any “peer review” to the Compact for America, and I have not spent any time at the Goldwater Institute. I criticized aspects of their proposal when they phoned me years ago. I oppose their proposal, and they should not be using my name to pretend otherwise.
Both Eagle Forum and I have repeatedly criticized the Compact for America and other attempts to convene a Constitutional Convention or anything similar. Yet promoters of the Compact for America have misled legislators in various States to think otherwise. For example, at a recent legislative hearing in Missouri a witness advocating for the Compact for America publicly thanked Eagle Forum for its (imaginary) assistance and specifically thanked me by name for my alleged personal help. The witness created a false implication that I was somehow a fellow traveler in the Compact for America movement. The witness stated he had used Eagle Forum’s “Twenty Questions” handout and had resolved all our concerns in the currently proposed Compact. He was most generous in his praise of me, leaving the obvious impression that I was in some manner a consultant and approving of the currently proposed Compact. That is a false impression, as I have criticized the Compact for America and continue to oppose it.
Neither Eagle Forum nor I support the Compact for America or any Article V Constitutional Convention.
This is not the first time proponents of the Compact for America have used deceptive and misleading tactics. They have misled legislators in much the same way in other States in past years. At one point a Florida legislator told me that he had been led by a Compact for America supporter to believe that I supported it. I have never supported the Compact for America or anything similar.
I restate my strong opposition to all of these ConCon proposals, including the Compact for America, as well as Eagle Forum’s opposition to it. The fact that promoters of this variant of a ConCon have desperately resorted to use of misleading statements is itself proof of how bankrupt their proposal is. Gambling is never a good way out of insolvency, yet these ConCon proposals are similar to playing the roulette wheel with the future of our Nation.
Our Constitution is not the problem, and it is a Liberal approach to try to change it.
Andrew Schlafly, Esq.