A LETTER FROM OKLAHOMA EAGLE FORUM PRESIDENT BUNNY CHAMBERS
I am so happy that my mentor, the one and only Phyllis Schlafly, is being honored as the recipient of the Paul Weyrich Award on Wednesday, February 25th.
She is my heroine and example. I am in awe of her accomplishments and her energy as she continues to lead the conservative movement. I know of no other person who has influenced the lives of so many people and been the guardian of the unborn, the homemaker and liberty for all.
I first learned about Phyllis and Eagle Forum in 1974 when I joined the all volunteer STOP ERA movement that was spreading across America.
I listened to cassette tapes of her speaking on the reasons the ERA needed to be defeated, and as I was driving across our state to meetings to inform women about this unnecessary, unwanted, and undefined amendment that the feminists and socialists wanted to add to the U.S. Constitution, I would try to emulate her in every way. She has always been very encouraging to me and to all the women who look to her for leadership and guidance on political issues. Her analysis is always right!
Read More HERE
IS A CONVENTION OF STATES IN OUR FUTURE?
By: Lori Hendricks
Many groups are calling for an Article V Convention of the States as an alternate method of amending the Constitution. Article V 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;…”
Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and others as of late are touting a Convention of States (COS) as a means to pass a balanced budget amendment to reign in our out-of-control Congress. This is a dangerous proposition for a number of reasons, primarily the complete lack of precedent. ALL current amendments to the Constitution have been presented by the Congress. We have never had a Convention of States since the original in 1787.
The argument has been made that because it will be called for by the States that the states would, according to David Barton, another proponent, “limit the jurisdiction of the federal government”, however there is no language in the Article V which would limit the jurisdiction of the federal government. That is purely speculation. Further, there is no precedent for who would be chosen as delegates to the Convention. It will most certainly be bi-partisan and all states will be represented.
Another question yet to be answered is how many delegates will be selected from each State? The first Constitutional Convention allowed each state only one vote. Do you really believe larger states will agree to that this time? Again, no precedent and no outline for it in the article itself leaves this open.
There is no precedent for setting the rules for the Convention, although it could be assumed that since it will be called for by Congress, that it would set the rules, certainly a “Runaway Convention” is not without precedent. The Continental Congress had tasked the delegates to the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787 with “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation specifically stipulated that alterations must be confirmed unanimously. Neither of these mandates was followed. The Articles were replaced with an entirely new Constitution and ratification set to only three fourths of the states.
Once a convention is called, it cannot be stopped or the actions taken, undone. With no predetermined rules or limitations which will have any bearing on what is actually done, it is not unthinkable that a new Convention of States would have the same end result as the first.
Read More HERE
National Popular Vote is Wrong for Oklahoma
Last February, the Oklahoma State Senate passed by a 28-18 margin, SB906 which, had it made its way to the Governor’s desk, would have made Oklahoma the first solidly red state to join the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC). That action drew a large public outcry, and the bill was not allowed out of the Rules Committee in the House, however proponents of the measure are not giving up. Sponsors of the legislation have used unscrupulous tactics including all-expense paid “educational” trips to entice legislators’ votes. In fact, the last took place in December to New York City for members of the House.
The Compact, now introduced in the House as HB1686, would only become effective when and if states controlling 270 electoral votes, the number required to elect the President, pass identical legislation. State delegates in these states would then be required to ignore the votes of their state’s electorate and cast their state’s electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote regardless of which candidate won the majority vote of that state. The National Popular Vote law has so far been enacted by 11 states for a total of 165 electoral votes — 61% of the votes needed to activate it. (DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, WA, VT, CA, RI, NY – ALL typically blue states)
Simply put, the Compact is intended to act as a loophole in the Constitution of the United States and amend the Constitution without an actual amendment. It usurps the will of the people of Oklahoma in favor for the will of voters in more populous states.
Click Here to read more