A Letter from OK Eagle Forum President Bunny Chambers

February 23, 2015

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 25^th.

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!

I stay amazed at all she does—writing her PS Reports, hosting a weekly radio program, speaking at events across the U.S., writing some 20 books and just last year updating “A Choice Not an Echo.”

America will continue to be influenced by her analysis of the issues, and I will always admire her for being the spokesman for all conservative causes, especially for the unborn, the traditional family and the preservation of the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you, Phyllis.   It’s because of you that I became involved in politics and have tried to make a difference in our culture through the political process. My involvement with you and Eagle Forum led me to work to elect many conservative candidates and to seek several positions in the Republican Party, culminating in me being elected to serve as National Committeewoman for Oklahoma (1996-2008). I became the State Leader for Eagle Forum of Oklahoma in 1999 because she called me and said she needed me—and no one tells Phyllis, “No.” I have truly enjoyed being associated with Phyllis and Eagle Forum. I can’t begin to think what my life would have been like if Eagle Forum was not a part of it.

Phyllis is indeed, “The Mother of the Conservative Movement.” Ladies’ Home Journal got it right when they named her as one of the 100 most important women of the 20^th century. Truly, she is the most important woman in America in the last 150 years.

I’m proud and honored to know you and call you my friend.

May God bless you today and always.

Sincerely yours for God, Family and Freedom,

Bunny Chambers, President

Eagle Forum of Oklahoma

IS AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES IN OUR FUTURE? LET’S HOPE NOT!

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.

In 226 years there have been over 300 calls, but Congress has never allowed a call for Convention of States to take place. In worthwhile cases, they have taken up the cause themselves. The Seventeenth amendment, calling for publicly elected senators was finally called by Congress after 33 legislatures called for a Convention of States.

Additionally, there is no guarantee that a Convention of States would limit itself to only one amendment. Many states have passed a resolution for a convention, however there is no consensus regarding the amendments to be considered or to limit the number. Further, it is not just conservatives calling for a convention. Groups like “Move to Amend”, which consists of over 250 radical leftist groups, are actively supporting a constitutional convention.

There have already been numerous amendments presented including:

• “Move to Amend” has proposed and passed amendments in California and Virginia, aimed at the removal of corporate personhood and providing for federal funding of all campaigns. This allows Congress to limit or PROHIBIT campaign donations by any group including the candidate themselves, thereby curtailing our most fundamental free speech, that of political free speech.
• There is an amendment proposed to add the verbiage “when serving in a militia” to the second amendment. Are you willing to risk it?
• A proposed Parental Rights Amendment would give the government jurisdiction over what used to be considered a God-Given Right. By enumerating this right, the government gains dominion over that right and as a result, those rights will come under attack.
• A Balanced Budget Amendment has been proposed many times and is a popular proposal now, but are there guarantees to require Congress to CUT SPENDING to achieve that balance?

Consider too, that because we have not yet answered the question of representation, will it be equal or based upon population? What happens if representation is not equal? What happens if that unequally represented convention changes the rules to eliminate passage by the States altogether?

Two of the groups pushing for a convention are Wolf Pac and Young Turks. Both are funded by George Soros who is pumping millions of dollars into the effort. Should a convention take place, guess which group will be better funded and whose amendments more likely to go through?

The argument that we have to change the Constitution to reign in the government is quite simply nonsensical. The problem is not the Constitution, it is the officials! We do not need to change the document, we need to change Congress and hold them to defending the document which they have sworn to protect and defend.

Our Constitution is a divinely inspired document which has served our nation for over 225 years. It is too precious to risk its demise.

By Lori Hendricks

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.

The Electoral College

The framers of the Constitution intended for Congress to be popularly elected, however the President and Vice President are intended to be “Executives of a Federation of Independent States”, and were to be elected by the States. As such, they designed the Electoral College as a solution to keep more populous states from overrunning the country.

James Madison warned of an interested and “overbearing majority”. He said this without knowing to what extent that majority would grow. Today, the populations of the 9 most populous states, CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI are greater than the populations of the remaining 41 combined.

Although many find the process of the Presidential elections through the Electoral College to be somewhat confusing, nationwide support for the system has never fallen below 58% according to a study by the League of Women Voters.

Arguments

Proponents argue that the plan makes Oklahoma more “relevant” and indicate we would see more Presidential candidates. In fact, in 2012 all candidates visited our state. The NPVC would end nation-wide presidential campaigns and dilute the importance of New Hampshire & Iowa; a candidate will only have to decisively win the ten or twelve largest metro areas.  In fact, this plan would reduce the voting impact of voters in VT, WY, ND and SD to the equivalent of Brooklyn.

Proponents contend that the NPVC would encourage increased voter turnout. In reality, it would have the opposite effect. Why cast a ballot when the voter knows that even if their candidate got 60% of the popular vote in their state, their electoral votes could be given to an opposing candidate, or even worse, one that got less than 50% of the national popular vote in a race with three or more candidates.

Proponents argue that the Electoral College is flawed as it is based upon Congressional representation, which is determined by census-based population. They argue the census includes in their count those who have no right to vote i.e. those in prison and those in the country illegally. The NPVC does not correct this separate issue. If the method by which to determine Congressional representation is flawed, then that issue must also be corrected by Constitutional Amendment.

An Unpopular President

Were NPVC in place during the last two election cycles, Barack Obama, without having won a single county in the State of Oklahoma, would have been awarded our Electoral votes. Further, were this system in place in 2000, Oklahoma’s electoral votes would have been awarded to then President Al Gore!

The NPVC does not help Republicans and currently no red state has signed on to the compact. Since the Civil War, only 3 times has the Electoral College elected a President who did not win the popular vote: Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush – All were Republicans.

Most recently, in 2000, George W. Bush was elected by the electoral college while Al Gore won the popular vote. However, Gore won the popular vote by winning ONLY 13 STATES, DC, RI, NY, MA, MD, NJ, CT, HI, DE, IL, CA, MI, VT, PA, WA, ME – see a pattern? Bush, conversely won 33 states. Gore was awarded the electoral votes of an additional 5 states, however he did not win a majority 50% of the vote due to other candidates on the ballot in those states. Gore carried major metropolitan areas, but he most certainly did not win the majority of the country!

Courts

Again, this campaign is an effort to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, and as such, would very likely be challenged in the courts. Article I specifically requires Congressional approval of agreements between the states. Article 5 sets out the parameters of amending the Constitution. These Articles, separately but certainly collectively hold the Compact unconstitutional, however, there would first be an election, then a lawsuit, then a decision by the Supreme Court. It would certainly be an unprecedented disaster!

Imagine a situation where the nationwide popular vote is extremely close, how long would the recount take and at what cost? In 2000, it took over a month for the Florida recount of 6 million votes. How long would it take to recount 130 million?

The compact does not require a minimum percentage for a winner to be declared. It is possible for the President to be elected with only 30% of the vote with multiple candidates on the ballot, furthering the possibility that states may refuse participation without a true majority win, followed by litigation.

Added Controversy

Should the NPVC become effective, our election process would become nationalized, and would surely bring with it national regulations. This, in itself is an issue of states sovereignty. Oklahoma requires voter ID, however most do not. States differ too, on crimes which restrict the right to vote. The compact would force states to recognize the validity of votes which would have been unlawful were they cast in that state, again infringing on the sovereignty of the states to regulate election law within their jurisdiction.

Further, because the compact allows as few as 11 states to determine the President, it shifts political power to those states in the compact and diminishes power of non-compacting states. This is why they need Oklahoma and other flyover states. Otherwise, the issues of the election will become entirely urban while issues which are important to rural areas will be ignored entirely.

BOTTOM LINE

The National Popular Vote Compact is not just simply a bad idea. That our State Senate would take actions to circumvent our Constitution as our Founders envisioned it is unacceptable. That they would consider ignoring the votes of the people of the State of Oklahoma in favor of those of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles is WRONG. PERIOD.

 

Welcome to our new website. We are still trying to finalize the design and information on this site so check back often.

1/20/2015

We have successfully transferred our website to our new hosting provider and changed the framework from DotNetNuke to WordPress. I am sure you will find that our new website opens faster and is more responsive. If you have any problems with the new site then you can email the webmaster by clicking here.