House Concurrent Resolution 5010 (Application for an Article V Amendments Convention Using the "Convention of States" Model Application) (Companion to SCR-1603)
Testimony of Richard D. Fry, Esq. for the Standing Committee on Federal and State Affairs of the Kansas House
Rep. Steve Brunk, Chair
Regarding House Concurrent Resolution 5010 (Application for an Article V amendments convention using the "Convention of States" model application) (Companion to SCR-1603)
Hearing: Thursday, March 12, 2015, 9:00 a.m. 346-S (Old Supreme Court Rm.) Stephen Bainum - Committee Assistant 785 368 7166 [email protected]
Note: Each member of this committee has been emailed a complete copy of this testimony. The printed edition delivered to the committee is abbreviated for efficiency considerations.
The “Grand Bargain in the Works to Amend Constitution” is available here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Grand-Bargain-2015.pdf
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
1 Table of Contents
Position Statement 3
Executive Summary 3
Memo of Testimony 5
The Only Question You Need to Answer 5
Wrong Solution to the Wrong Problem 5
Wrong Solution for the Problem Identified 5
Political Alchemy 6
What About Corrupt State Politicians? 6
Special Interests and State Politicians Working together for Mutual Benefit 6
Wrong Problem Identified 7
HCR-5010's Language is Flawed and Deceptive 8
HCR-5010's Language based on Convention of States' Model Application 8
Deceptions in HCR-5010's Language 8
HCR-5010's Language requests an Open Convention 10
The Term "Limit" Does not mean Reduce 11
History of the Movement to Amend the Constitution 12
Basis of my assessment / about the witness 13
Conclusion 13
Endnotes 14
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
2 Position Statement
I strongly oppose HCR-5010 as:
1. It offers the wrong solution for the wrong problem,
2. The resolution's language is flawed and deceptive as to the scope of the amendments it seeks.
3. Amending the Constitution will not convert oath-breakers into oath-keepers.
4. State legislatures already have the necessary constitutional authority to rein in a rogue federal government without amending the U.S. Constitution.
I strongly urge you to vote against this resolution.
Executive Summary
The sponsors1 of HCR-5010, have been prompted by special interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs), some of which were created specifically to lobby state legislators to apply for an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments.”2 Many of these groups, funded by the billionaire boys clubs3, are promoting the idea that we can stop corrupt federal politicians from violaing their oath to support the Constitution by rewriting the Constitution.
The language of the “operative [clause]”4 used in HCR-5010 was that created by Citizens for Self-Governance’s "Convention of States Project," an NGO created for the purpose of carrying on the current campaign of a fifty year old project to rewrite the Constitution through an Article V convention.
According to Convention of States Project’s “A Handbook for Legislators and Citizens,” Eric O’Keefe, a member of the Citizens for Self-Governance Board of Directors, “helped found U.S. Term Limits in 1991,5” an effort which resulted in amending the Arkansas State Constitution that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) as unconstitutional.6
The current promoters of this Constitutional revision say that an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” can be limited to specific topics or subjects, and suggest that a “limited” convention is what they intend. The reality is quite different. The language of the "Convention of States" model Article V application, which is used verbatim in HCR-5010, actually requests an open convention which could address all parts of the Constitution and
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
3 could propose increases or decreases in the "power and authority" not only of the "federal government" but of the states as well.
This deception is enabled by the use of the term "limit" in a fashion to suggest it means reduce. However, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “limit” to mean, “In General, [limit] is a boundary of scope, be it authority, power, privilege, or right. Prescribed bounds.”7
COS, and by proxy, HCR-5010 also uses the synonymous term "restraint" in a similar fashion. In essence, the terms “limit” and “restrain” do not mean reduce.
In a March 15, 2014 Article V debate in Yorktown, Virginia, Convention of States staff counsel Robert Kelly admitted the COS Article V application opens up the entire Constitution, with the exception of Article VII, which addressed the “Establishment of this Constitution,” not the amendment thereof.8
Their solution, a Constitution rewrite, will not logically solve what they have identified as the problem with the Republic, i.e., corrupt "federal" politicians who are violating the Constitution. They do not explain how a “change in structure” to our form of government will turn corrupt politicians, a “personnel” issue, into statesmen.9
In identifying the "problem" they have neglected to take note of the fact that state politicians have been collaborating and complicit with the federal government in violating the Constitution. The extent of such collaboration is revealed in part by the fact that all states are taking "federal dollars" and that over a third of the budgets of over half the states is "federal dollars". This amount has been increasing over the last decade.
Thus, the solution to the "problem", these constitutional rewriters propose, will not solve the partial "problem" they have identified, let alone the real problem.
The real root problem in our Republic is that "We the People" are not holding our public servants accountable when they violate their oath of office or their oath to support the Constitution. Part of the underlying cause of this is that "We the People" and our "public servants" no longer understand the principles of the Republic and our duty to enforce them.
Rewriting the Constitution will not address the root problem.
When one acts in ignorance they invite disaster. Or, said another way, "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread."10
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
4 Memorandum of Testimony
The Only Question You Need to Answer
To decide, regardless of the method of proposal, whether amending the U.S. Constitution will do anything to cure the ills of the Republic you need ask yourself only one question:
Why should you believe that amending the U.S. Constitution will get the corrupt politicians, who have been violating their sacred and solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, to all of a sudden begin obeying the Constitution and upholding their oath?
Patriot Henry, in his famous "Give me Liberty or give me death" speech, said:
"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."
Indeed, do you or I have any better method to judge the future?
The Wrong Solution for the Wrong Problem
Wrong Solution for the Problem Identified
This resolution is based on the argument that because our "public servants" in Washington are violating their sacred and solemn oath to "support" the Constitution, and have been violating it with reckless abandon for at least 100 years, that we should rewrite the Constitution.
The current crop of Constitution revisionists, specifically the Convention of States model application drafters, after which HCR-5010 is modeled, are calling for a structural change to our Constitution (form of government) to address a personnel problem.
Even those pushing this constitutional rewrite acknowledge there is nothing wrong with the Constitution and that the problem lies with the politicians.
This is disjointed logic at best and a deceptive cover story at worse.
This is like asking the dealer at a card game to get a new deck of cards after you catch him dealing from the bottom of the deck. The problem is not the deck of cards. The problem is the dealer. If you follow this course of action you are likely to end up with a crooked dealer and a marked deck of cards. You are making the situation worse.
If someone else at the table is recommending this solution you may be sure he is either a ‘fool rushing in’ or in cahoots with the dealer.
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
5 Political Alchemy
Rewriting the Constitution will not turn corrupt, immoral politicians, who refuse to obey their oath, into statesmen anymore than rewriting the Ten Commandments will turn sinners into saints. It is some kind of political alchemy like changing worthless lead into precise gold.
Unless you believe that rewriting the Constitution will improve the morals and enlighten the ignorance of our politicians, you cannot in good faith support rewriting the Constitution.
What About Corrupt State Politicians?
Another problem with this approach is it attempts to put the blame solely on those politicians in Washington, D.C. The reality is that our state "public servants" have been collaborating with the feds for decades at least since 1903. This is an effort by the special-interest, Constitution revisionists to curry the assistance of state "public servants" by shifting blame away from them. Both the state politicians’ and the special-interest groups’ motives are clear.
All state officers, executive, legislative and judicial, are required by the federal Constitution to take an oath to support the federal Constitution.11 Implicit in this oath is an assertion by the oath taker that they have a working knowledge of the Constitution.
Under this oath the state politicians may not propose, sponsor, support, enforce, tolerate or abide by Constitutional violations. Yet they (you?) have been accepting "federal dollars" for things which the federal government has no Constitutional authority to be involved with such as education, environment, roads (except "post roads"), speed limits, helmet laws, seat belt laws, age limits on alcohol consumption, firearms laws, community development and land use regulation (Sustainable Development) and the list goes on and on.
All states accept this federal bribe money and now over half of the states have budgets that are comprised of at least one third "federal dollars." This state is one of those corrupt states. Are you one of the corrupt state politicians that allowed this to happen and allow it to go on?
In fact, most of the "federal mandates" including "unfunded mandates" that state politicians complain about are not mandates at all, but rather, are contractual obligations of the states which the states have voluntarily, although inadvisably, accepted for a little "federal" money up front, with state financial obligations down the road.
Special Interests and State Politicians working together for their mutual benefit.
The state politicians and these special interests have a tacit agreement, for their mutual benefit, to look the other way and gloss over the state politicians' complicity in the violations of the Constitution. When the Convention of States staff counsel Robert Kelly was confronted with this issue, in a recorded Article V debate with Patriot Coalition National Director Jeff Lewis, he acknowledged the states are just as guilty by saying we need “state scumbags” to keep an eye on the federal “scumbags.” 12
Are you one of the "state scumbags" Mr. Kelly was talking about?
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
6 Until the states themselves stop being complicit with the "federal" government's violations of the Constitution, no structural change to the Constitution will matter. In fact, it is certain to make the citizens' situation worse.
Wrong Problem Identified
The root problem afflicting the Republic is that "We the People" are not upholding our patriotic and moral duty to hold our "public servants" accountable when they violate their duties, especially their oath to support and uphold the Constitution.
Not only have the special interests behind this Constitution Revisionist movement not identified a solution that solves the "problem" they have identified (corrupt federal politicians), they have failed to identify the actual (root) problem. They have rather identified a mere symptom of the root problem.
In short, what they have incorrectly identified as the “problem” is actually a symptom, one which doesn’t just manifest in Washington, D.C., but throughout state and local governments as well. That makes the symptoms “personnel” problems, not “structural.”
The root “problem” is the sovereigns (We the People) has been negligent in holding our public servants accountable to their oaths for well over a century, and the cancer of our neglect has metastasized to a point that the patient, (our constitutional Republic), is near death.
If our federal and state politicians are corrupt, it is because "We the people" are not holding them accountable. Until "We the People" hold our "public servants" accountable no amendments to the Constitution will make a difference. Once we hold our "public servants" accountable no amendments will be necessary.
It is not enough for our politicians to be "good guys." It is not enough that our politicians be "conservatives," whatever that means anymore. They must be compliant with the Constitution and the fundamental principles of the Republic.
Many citizens and "public servants" adhere to the evil philosophy of "Party over Principle" and that it is proper and moral to support the "lesser of two evils." Of course, each party deems itself to be that "lesser evil."
Rewriting the Constitution will neither cause the people to undertake their duty to require politicians to uphold their oath, nor will stop them from supporting the "lesser of two evils." The vast majority of citizens are ignorant of the fundamental principles of this Republic.
"A primary object...should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing...than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?" 13 - George Washington
It is not only our children that are lacking this fundamental and essential education but the adults from whom our "public servants" are chosen.
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
7 "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." – Thomas Jefferson
To fail to deal with the root problem and to promote the idea that rewriting the Constitution can solve the Republic's problems is a form of deception and/or denial. In the end, it will prove to be lethal to Liberty.
HCR-5010's Language is Flawed and Deceptive
HCR-5010 is based on the Convention of States Project’s' Model Application
HCR-5010 is based on the "Convention of States Project’s model application found in “A Handbook for Legislators and Citizens”14
The operative language of this resolution, that language contained in the "resolved" section, which relates to the scope of the applied for Article V convention, is verbatim that in the COS model application. The COS language is:
“Section 1. The legislature of the State of ______hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for Members of Congress.”15
Deceptions in HCR-5010's Language
The drafting of the language related to how much of the Constitution is open for amendment or the direction of the change of authority of the "federal government," i.e. whether to expand or reduce its authority, is either incredibly poor, or incredibility good.
If the drafter intended to make clear that any amendments are to be restricted to certain parts of the Constitution versus the entire Constitution, and that any change in the Constitution must “reduce” the authority of the "federal government," then this drafting is incredibility poor as it does not accomplish this objective.
If, on the other hand, the objective of this drafting was to make it look to a casual observer that it does call for reductions, when it in fact allows for an expansion of authority and can pertain to any and all parts of the Constitution versus only particular parts, then it is incredibly good drafting. This is called sophistry and chicanery.16
In other words the language used to set the scope of the requested amendments is ambiguous and deceptive.
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
8
The deceptions include:
1. Using the term "limited" when the request is in fact not limited,
2. Listing three "issues" when in fact one of the three "issues" encompasses the other two, giving it the appearance of relating to multiple specific issues i.e., not the entire Constitution, when in fact it does relate to the entire Constitution, and
3. Using psychology and terminology to make it appear something is happening when in fact it is not, including by the use of the term "limit."
First, "impose fiscal restraints" is requesting a change of the spending power of Congress. This relates to Article I, §8.
Second, "...limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress..."
This phrase would entail changes to Articles I (Congress), II ( President/Executive branch) and III (Judicial branch).
Third, "...limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government..." is exactly what the U.S. Constitution was created to do. Therefore, this calls for changes (nonspecific) to Articles I, II, III, IV, V and VI. Article VII is moot as having been exhausted upon the ratification of the current federal Constitution.
This phrase necessarily encompassed the other two phrases "impose fiscal restraints" (Article I) and "...limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress..." (Articles I, II, III)
Fourth, the term "limit" is being used to make the unwary think it means to lessen or reduce the "power and jurisdiction" of the federal government. "Limit" does not mean "reduce."
"Limit" means simply to set a boundary or an outer perimeter of authority.17
By way of example, to increase the terms of Office of the President from its current limit of two terms to a new limit of three terms (as many Progressives would like to do and for which they have submitted proposed amendments to the Constitution) would in fact be "limiting" the "power and jurisdiction" of the Office the President under the request in HCR-5010, even though it would be increasing the federal government's power by enlarging the number of terms.
Likewise, the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA), which Mike Farris, head of the COS Project, is promoting, and which was in Congress last session as H.J.Res. 50, would for the first time in our history create authority in the federal government to regulate parental rights.18 Yes, even though it is giving more power to the federal government it would be seen as "limiting" federal
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
9 authority under the COS-based Kansas application because it sets a boundary (limit) where no authority previously existed. This is pure sleight of hand.
Words mean something and if one is not careful with the use of words, words can do more harm than good.
HCR-5010's Language requests an Open Convention
Although the "Convention of States" gives lip service to a "limited convention," the language of its application, which is identical to HCR-5010's language, is a request for a general convention i.e., it requests or at least allows the entire Constitution be open for amendment.19
COS's national staff counsel, Robert Kelly, admitted this in his March 15, 2014 Article V debate with Patriot Coalition’s National Director Jeff Lewis in Yorktown, Virginia. A link to a clip of this part of the debate is available at this foot note.20
The language of the COS-based HCR-5010 says:
"... calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress..."
This ostensibly calls for three separate subjects or topics to be taken up at any Article V amendments convention called by Congress under this application. They are as follows:
1. "impose fiscal restraints on the federal government",
2. "limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government", and
3. "limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress".
The first "limiting" phrase, "impose fiscal restraints on the federal government" relates to the money powers enumerated in Article I of the federal Constitution.
The third "limiting" phrase, "limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress", relates to portions of Articles I (Congress), II (the President) and III (the Judiciary).
The second phrase, "limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government", is the clincher. To understand why, one has to have a basic understanding of the federal Constitution and its primary purposes.
As state Legislators you have all taken an oath required by the federal Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3) to "support" the federal Constitution. Implicit in this oath is an assertion by you that
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
10 you have a working knowledge of the Constitution. Otherwise, you would not have the ability to "support" the Constitution or as the Framers phased this duty, to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."(See U.S. Const. Art. II §1 cl. 8)
There are three main purposes of the Constitution. They are:
1. To create the institutions of the central government that operate out of Washington D.C., i.e., Congress, the President and the Judiciary, and
2. To enumerate the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government, as exercised by the central government, and
3. To detail the interaction between the states and the central government and the states authority as components of the federal government.
So the language of the second "limiting" phrase of HCR-5010, "limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government", encompasses the very purpose of the Constitution to begin with. In other words it is referring to the entire Constitution: Articles I, II, III, IV, V, VI.
Article VII arguably is moot as being exhausted by the ratification of the current Constitution.21
To the extent the first and third "limiting" phrases only include a portion of Articles I, II and III, the second "limiting" phrase includes everything covered by "limiting" phrases one and three and everything else in the Constitution not covered by phrases one and three. Thus, to the extent a state could limit the scope of a federal amendments convention, which is doubtful, that ability to limit is not relevant to HCR-5010 as it opens up the entire Constitution to amendment.
This is why some have said, regarding the COS model language: "One does not have to worry about a runaway convention as there is no place left to run."
The second "limiting" phrase magically turns what looks like, and would otherwise be, a request for a limited convention (as to the parts of the Constitution), into a request for an open, unlimited convention.
The Term "Limit" Does not mean Reduce
The operative language, relating to the scope of the applied for convention, uses the term "limit" in two ways. First, related to the entire scope of the applied for convention: "calling of a convention of the states limited to...", and second, related specifically to two of the three "limiting" clauses in the scope provision i.e., the second and third scope statements: "limit the power and jurisdiction" and " limit the terms of office".
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
11 The first scope statement uses the term "restraints" instead of "limit". That is a distinction without a difference.
You see, "limit" does not mean to reduce, lessen or make smaller. It is simply a boundary, an outer border or restraint. An existing border (limit) can be expanded as well as be contracted or reduced. Thus, this term gives no indication as to the direction of any change to the current limit.
It seems very curious that the legal scholars that put this application together did not specifically choose verbiage that unequivocally means to reduce or lessen the "federal government," but rather, chose the ambiguous, potentially nefarious verbiage "limit,” which as noted, provides no direction on the change. Thus, this terminology is as consistent with increasing the limit (increasing the authority) as with reducing the authority of the "federal government." And, it seems that such was not just an oversight in using the inapposite and inappropriate term "limit" because they also chose to use a term that had the same neutral meaning i.e., "restraints."
History of the Movement to Amend the Constitution
The expressed purpose of this movement to rewrite the Constitution is to "rein in" or reduce the power of the "federal government." The first campaign of this movement for an Article V amendments convention was launched in the early 1970's. The effort failed because people did not want the entire Constitution open for change. At that time no one had any thought of being able to limit an Article V convention.
By the time the second campaign to rewrite the Constitution was launched in the early 1980’s, those in the movement had dreamed up the idea of a limited convention to squelch the voices that defeated them about a decade earlier. However, this second campaign failed due to people's fears that such a convention could not, or would not, be limited and would result in a "runaway convention." What this meant to most was that the entire Constitution would be open to revision.
The third campaign to rewrite the Constitution created and attempted to sell the idea that the states had the ability to limit the convention. It failed for the same reason as the previous two campaigns: people did not want the entire Constitution open for revision.
The current campaign is now attempting to sell their latest theory that the states not only can control the convention but that the convention is a "convention of states" i.e., it is a state enterprise and activity, subjecting the most minute detail to the control of the states. The hope is this will overcome the people’s forty year reluctance to open the entire Constitution up for revision.
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
12 It thus seems odd that the application those in the constitutional rewrite campaign came up with, while on first blush seems not to open the entire Constitution up for revision, does in fact request an open convention i.e., it subjects the entire Constitution to modification. It is like they themselves want the entire Constitution open for revision in spite of their lip service otherwise.
Basis for my Assessment / Witness background
I am an attorney of twenty plus years. And, I have been studying and researching the Article V convention issue since 2009. I have spent over 1,500 hours dealing with this issue. I have a solid foundation from which to speak on this issue.
I debated numerous top leadership on the Article V issue across the country, including, but not limited to: Mike Farris, head of COS Project, in Chantilly, Virginia on (12/06/14); Nick Dranias, with Goldwater Institute/Compact for America, in Arizona (11/13/14 ); the COS Executive Director, Jim Kinney, in North Carolina (04/12/14); COS national staff counsel, Robert Kelly and its State Director for Alaska (02/18/14); and its State Director for Kansas, David Schneider (01/14/14); conducted briefings in state legislatures and in Congress. I have also provided dozens of presentations on this issue around the country.
Conclusion
HCR-5010 is the poor execution of a bad idea. It is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Amending the Constitution, whether those amendments are proposed by an amendments convention or by Congress, will not resolve the root problem in the Republic. The root problem is that "We the People," the sovereigns of this Republic, are no longer fulfilling our moral and patriotic duty to hold you "public servants" accountable, including to insist you uphold your oath to support the federal Constitution.
HCR-5010 calls for a convention to consider all parts of the Constitution for a rewrite and to change, increase or decrease, the "power and authority" of the "federal government" i.e. that in Washington D.C., as well as that of the states under the Constitution. It is not an application for a convention to reduce, contract or lessen the power and authority of the government in Washington, D.C.
Rewriting the Constitution will not turn corrupt politicians into statesmen, anymore than revising The Ten Commandments will turn sinners into saints.
State governments have all the Constitutional authority necessary to rein in an out-of-control federal government without any amendments.
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
13 For more information on the background on this ongoing half-century push to trigger an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments,” and the diabolical collusion of the socio-fascist and neo-fascist, read: “Grand Bargain” in the Works to Amend Constitution.22
For the sake of Liberty, the Kansas Legislature should resoundingly reject HCR-5010, SCR-1603, and all other efforts to trigger an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments.”
I welcome any questions, and am willing work with my fellow Kansans and legislators to develop and implement real solutions to reining in out-of-control government.
Respectfully,
Richard D. Fry, Esq. Founder, November Patriots General Counsel, Patriot Coalition Email: [email protected] Phone: 816-853-8718
End Notes
1 DeGraaf, Anthimides, Barton, Bradford, Brunk, Campbell, B. Carpenter, Dannebohm, Dove, Esau, Estes, Ewy, Garber, Gonzalez, Hawkins, Hedke, Hibbard, Hildabrand, Hoffman, Huebert, Hutchins, Johnson, K. Jones, Kahrs, Kelley, Kiegerl, Macheers, Mason, O'Brien, L. Osterman, Peck, Powell, Read, Rhoades, Rubin, Scapa, Seiwert, Sutton, Waymaster, Whitmer and Williams
2 U.S. Constitution, See Article V. http://www.patriotcoalition.com/u-s-constitution/
3 The "conservative" billionaire boys’ club network of special Interest propaganda and governmental influence: According to Muckety (http://www.muckety.com/) and other sources the State Policy Network (SPN) is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation and the Castile Rock Foundation(Adolf Coors family). SPN is a "hub organization" which other organization join in order to better coordinate their resources and activities.
Virtually every "conservative " think tank" in the SPN is also funded by Koch and Coors and they are all pushing for an Article V: Heritage Foundation (Funding Koch and Coors), Freedom Watch, CATO Institute (Funding Koch and Coors), Independence Institute (Funding Koch and Coors)(This is where the legal "grugru" for the Article V movement resides, Prof. Robert Natelson), Goldwater Institute (Funded Koch and Walton family). ALEC (Funded by Koch) is and has been a major player is the Constitution Revisionist movement for decades, it use to fund the SPN annual meetings and is now an associate member of the SPN.
Major "Talking Heads" supporters have been receiving millions in sponsorship money from the "conservative" billionaire boys club network since this most recent campaign for a Constitution rewrite began in 2008: Sean Hannity - 2008 (Heritage), Rush Limbaugh - 2009 (Heritage), Glenn Beck -2010 (Freedom Works), Mark Levin - 2010 (Americans for Prosperity (AFP)).
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
14
AFP was founded by Koch (Richard Fink -Koch Exec.VP) and is funded by David Koch, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (ran by David Koch) and Freedom Partners (Richard H. Fink is a board member)
Freedom Partners also funds the national Tea Party Patriots which supports a Constitution rewrite.
Tea Party Patriots is also funded by an organization ran by Leo Linbeck III and Eric O'Keefe. O'Keefe is a long time operative of the Koch's / Billionaires Boys Club network having set up and ran several Koch non- governmental organizations.
Some sources:
Kenneth P. Vogel, Lucy Calmont, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck sell endorsements to conservative groups, Politico (06/15/2011) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56997.html Exposing the Convention of the States (COS) as an Article V Constitutional Convention … and Who’s Behind It All, including Soros & Levin, Secure the Republic (12/08/2013) http://securetherepublic.com/main/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v- constitutional-convention/ Muckety- David H. Koch, http://www.muckety.com/David-H-Koch/2226.muckety Muckety-Heritage Foundation - http://www.muckety.com/16176FD6360AC1CF98F0065AC544BDC1.map Muckety- Freedom Works - http://www.muckety.com/DDD76C12D4B5644BBB1DCD84E9B5B788.map
4 “Operative words” definition: The precise words that achieve the objective of an instrument.
Black’s Law Dictionary, http://thelawdictionary.org/operative-words-2/
5 Eric O’Keefe, Citizens for Self-Governance Board of Directors, “Convention of States Handbook for Legislators and Citizens,” (page 14) http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/COS-Handbook.pdf
6 In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “U.S. Term Limits, Inc.” amendment to the Arkansas Constitution, holding that, “Section 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution violates the Federal Constitution.” The Court also held that, “…Amendment 73 must fall because it is an indirect attempt to evade the Qualifications Clauses' requirements and trivializes the basic democratic principles underlying those Clauses.” U.S. Term Limits, In. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 (1995) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/case.html
7 “Limit” definition: “In General, this is a boundary of scope, be it authority, power, privilege, or right. Prescribed bounds.” Black’s Law Dictionary, http://thelawdictionary.org/limit/
8 “Convention of States Admit Article V Application not Limited,” Robert Kelly, staff counsel for Convention of States, in public Article V Debate, Yorktown, Virginia, March 15, 2014 https://youtu.be/kCApyUYvuRE
9 “The Convention of States Project is Here!” (October 11, 2013) https://youtu.be/kCApyUYvuRE
10 “For fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” – An Essay on Criticism, Alexander Pope, 1709 http://poetry.eserver.org/essay-on-criticism.html
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
15
11 The federal oath clause in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 mandates:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
12 COS attorney claims we need “state scumbags” to keep the federal “scumbags” in check at an Article V Debate in Yorktown, Virginia (March 15, 2014) https://youtu.be/-_KM8kjio5E
13 The Writings of George Washington, by John C. Fitzpatrick, GPO, 1931-44. Vol. 32:2.(As quoted in The Constitution of the United States, National Center for Constitutional Studies (Second Edition, 2005) ) http://nccs.net
14 COS model Article V application, Page 16, COS Handbook for State Legislators and Citizens http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/COS-Handbook.pdf
15 See Endnote 14.
16 Sophistry and chicanery are not noble characteristics.
“There was a marked difference in Lincoln’s animus before he took up a case, or after he got it. He would advise with perfect frankness about a potential case, but when it was in esse, then he wanted to win as badly as any lawyer, but (as I have said before), unlike the average lawyer, he would not do anything mean, or which savored of dishonesty or sharp practice, or which required absolute sophistry or chicanery in order to succeed.” “Life on the Circuit with Lincoln: With Sketches of General Grant, Sherman…” (pages 262-263) by Henry Clay Whitney https://books.google.com/books?id=qywOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=sophistry+and+chicanery+su preme+court&source=bl&ots=HHkDUCaFFQ&sig=J3_XNXb8zetu2AzEC4NPV8dWfnw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eRsBVdLR MIumgwS9q4LwAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sophistry%20and%20chicanery%20supreme%20court &f=false
17 Supra.
18 Dr. Edwin Vieira on the Parental Rights Amendment https://youtu.be/IqzbeTqQ3R0
19 There is a great deal of controversy over whether an Article V amendments convention can be limited by the applications / applicants (states) for such a convention. Such issue is not relevant for the purposes of discussing HCR-5010 language because such language does not, as a practical or linguistic matter, request a convention limited to a particular topic or subject.
20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCApyUYvuRE Home page http://www.rejoinordie.com/
21 There may be an issue as to whether an Article V amendments convention could proposed to breathe new life into Article VII.
22 “Grand Bargain” in the Works to Amend Constitution,” Richard D. Fry, (03-12-15) http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Grand-Bargain-2015.pdf
Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/RDFry-HCR-5010-Testimony.pdf
16