Time: Wed Jul 09 20:32:30 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA09147; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:28:23 -0700 (MST) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA21084; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:28:11 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 20:28:03 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: LEADERS "Insider's Report" July, 1997 (Part 1) (fwd) This may be a repeat, but I am sending anyway. Part II will follow immediately behind this. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com <snip> > >************************************************************************* > 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 >publica- >tions, 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) > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com> > > ======================================================================== 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