Pages

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Don’t Be Fooled by Article V Conventions




The idea that there might be a simple fix to all our problems has seduced many thoughtful and well-intentioned men and women over the ages. If only we could do this, then all would be well.
We stand with our persevering friends and allies.  But let’s not be fooled.  By the very nature of man and the imperfection of politics, there are no silver bullets.
Such is the case with the proposal to hold an Article V constitutional amendments convention.  A perennial question in American history, it seems on its face to be a simple suggestion to deploy a forgotten option to bring about the changes we seek.
In the course of our work advising state and federal lawmakers and conservative allies across the country, we have been giving this issue close attention and study.  Along with Trent England, the director of constitutional studies at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, I’ve written our assessment of the meaning and status of Article V as part of our Constitution Guidance for Lawmakers series. Stemming from that analysis, and taking into consideration the circumstances under which we are now operating, we have come to the conclusion that an Article V convention is not the answer to our problems.  The lack of precedent, extensive unknowns, and considerable risks of an Article V amendments convention should bring sober pause to advocates of legitimate constitutional reform contemplating this avenue.  We are not prepared to encourage state governments at this time to apply to Congress to call an amendments convention.
This should come as no surprise. While the congressional method of proposing amendments is unambiguous—Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary, may propose specific amendments—things get murkier with an Article V convention. The vagueness of this method led Madison to oppose the proposal at the Constitutional Convention: “difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum etc. which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.” Combine that with the fact that no such amending convention has ever occurred, and too many serious questions are left open and unanswered.
The requirement that amendments proposed by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states is a significant limit on the process and would likely prevent a true “runaway” convention from fundamentally altering the Constitution.  But we don’t think it is at all clear, for instance, thattwo-thirds of the states calling for an amendments convention can limit the power of all the states assembled in that convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Other questions include the many practical aspects of how an amending convention would operate and whether any aspects of such a convention (including going beyond its instructions) would be subject to judicial review.
That said, advocating an Article V convention as part of a state-based strategy to press Congress to pass a constitutional amendment is not unreasonable.  Precisely because of the potential chaos of the process, the very threat of an amendments convention will pressure Congress to act rather than risk having one proceed.  That’s what happened in the 1980s with the unsuccessful push for a balanced budget amendment (good example) but also during the progressive era with the successful push for the direct election of senators (bad example).
Serious scholars will undoubtedly continue to debate the historical record and speculate about the possibility of an amendments convention under Article V.  But the argument that, as a matter of course, we should spend considerable time, money and effort right now to design, plan and implement a convention—despite the unknowns and risks involved—is both imprudent and potentially dangerous.  It is a distraction that inevitably gets bogged down in a debate over technical details, taking valuable attention and focus away from the substance of the constitutional reforms themselves. Claims of the ease and efficacy of an Article V convention are also misleading to the many committed and well-meaning reformers and activists who are serious about constitutional change in the United States.
There are several very good constitutional amendment ideas circulating, and a strong consensus is beginning to coalesce around a few. We should be careful not to undermine those good efforts by tying them intrinsically to the dubious process of an Article V convention.
There may be a time in extremis when an Article V convention is our last option to try to preserve the Constitution.   That’s how Madison at the height of the Nullification Crisis and later Lincoln in the midst of secession and the Civil War looked at it.  But just when there seems to be a national awakening to reestablish constitutional principles, American politics at the state and national level is moving in the right direction and a decisive election is on the horizon—that dark time is not now.

Speaker Boehner Addresses 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference


FULL TEXT: 
Boehner: To Create Jobs, We Must “Liberate Our Economy from the Shackles of Debt, Excessive Regulation, and Over-Taxation” 
Washington (Feb 10)House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today addressed attendees of the Presidential Banquet at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) after receiving the John M. Ashbrook Award. Boehner addressed the need to “liberate our economy from the shackles of debt, excessive regulation, and over-taxation” to help create new jobs. The full remarks as prepared are below:
Remarks by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)
Conservative Political Action Conference
Remarks As Prepared for Delivery
February 10, 2011
"Thanks to David Keane for his leadership; congratulations to Al Cardenas, the new ACU chairman; and special thanks to Cleta Mitchell for her leadership and friendship.
"I’m honored by this recognition – but as with the office I hold, this isn’t about me. 
"I wouldn’t be Speaker of the House if Americans last year had not stood up and reasserted control over their government.  And many of the people in this room helped lead that uprising.  So. . .I should be thanking you.
"Our new majority is intent on honoring the commitment we made to the American people.
"We pledged we would listen, and we pledged we would do things differently if given the opportunity to run the House.
"We pledged we would focus on stopping the job-crushing spending binge in Washington. 
"We pledged we would focus on jobs and spending, and stopping the Washington regulatory assault that has led to massive uncertainty in the private sector.
"We’re going to keep our word. 
"I’m a former small businessman.  Ran a small business, met a payroll, created jobs. 
"I’ve seen first-hand how government makes it harder for small businesses to create jobs and make ends meet.
"Excessive government regulation crushes jobs.
"This is why our majority will pass a resolution to inventory and review federal agency rules and regulations that may be making it harder create jobs and grow the economy.
"This is why we’re going to pass Geoff Davis’ REINS Act, which requires congressional approval for any new regulation with an economic impact of more than $100 million. 
"Excessive government SPENDING crushes jobs, too. 
"By printing and borrowing all this money, the government is creating uncertainty, and crowding private capital out of the market.
“Every tax dollar the government takes is a dollar that Americans are unable to invest in their families, their businesses, and our economy.
"The American people fundamentally get this.  When are the politicians in this town going to figure it out? 
"I want to read you a couple of quotes, which (giving credit where credit is due), I got from a great column by a gentleman named Jay Hartz, which I encourage you all to read.  The quotes:
‘Unions [and their liberal allies]. . .want more welfare, which would push up the deficit. They also want a national health program, which would push up the deficit borrowing. . .This waste of investment hurts all Americans, but it hurts [workers] most of all.
‘Liberal economic theorists argue that a large budget deficit will stimulate the economy and produce jobs.  In reality, however, large deficits destroy jobs.’
"These comments could have come from me, or Eric Cantor, or Mitch McConnell on any given day right now.
"But they were actually uttered nearly 40 years ago, by the late great Congressman from my state of Ohio, John Ashbrook.
"He was directing his comments not just at the Left, but also at some in his own party who had begun to subscribe to the Left’s way of thinking.
"A generation ago, John Ashbrook was taking on the establishment of his party, urging Republicans to reject the idea that we can borrow and spend our way back to prosperity.
"The party ultimately heard John Ashbrook’s call.  The result was the presidency of Ronald Reagan. . .a new approach to governing. . .and the largest peacetime economic expansion in our history. 
"Ashbrook – and Reagan – understood the American economy doesn’t run on government spending.  It runs on freedom. 
"A generation later, we’re experiencing a similar realignment.  And today it’s the tea party movement calling us to our senses.
"Courtesy of President Obama, Americans have witnessed the grand failure of the notion that massive spending and borrowing by government will jumpstart private-sector job creation. 
“A trillion dollars in wasteful ‘stimulus’ spending left Americans asking: Mr. President, where are the jobs?
"And now President Obama is asking us to raise the national debt ceiling – without any commitment to cutting spending at the same time.
"Instead of offering a budget that ends the spending binge, the administration is preparing to offer a budget that will destroy jobs by spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much.
"With all due respect, this isn’t “winning the future.”  It’s spending the future. 
"What we need is a path to prosperity – one that unleashes the greatness of our people and the awesome potential of the American economy, by getting government out of the way.
"Americans see that the spending binge in Washington is hurting job creation – not helping it.  They’re calling on their leaders to stop the job-crushing spending binge and cut spending. 
"Based on his State of the Union address and his budget, it looks like the president still isn’t listening. 
“But we are.  We’ve gotten the message.
"The American people have directed us to cut spending.  We will.  And there’s no limit to the amount we’re willing to cut to help get our economy moving again.
"Let me be very clear about this: we are going to exceed our Pledge to America. We are going to cut $100 billion in discretionary spending next week. 
"Write it down.  $100 billion in discretionary spending. "And we aren’t going to stop there.   
"Once we’re done with the CR, we’re going to cut mandatory spending.
"And this isn’t just about how much we spend, but how we spend it. 
"Every committee has been tasked with doing real oversight. 
"And you’re going to see us fight to end taxpayer funding for abortion once and for all. 
"The other side says our spending cut plan, drafted by Paul Ryan, will cause ‘pain and suffering.’ Baloney.
"What will truly cause pain and suffering is the status quo – doing nothing – leaving the spending process on autopilot and squandering our nation's future.
"Our majority will not stand for that.
"Our goal is to liberate our economy from the shackles of debt, excessive regulation, and over-taxation.
"As I told my colleagues – this isn’t about us.  It’s about the American people.  Our job is to follow their will, as we said we would. 
"There’s another nice thing about an open process: it means Democrats can offer their amendments, too. 
"If they’re good ideas, the House can incorporate them. 
"And if they’re bad ideas, the House can defeat them.
"Either way, both sides will have a chance to make an argument and the best ideas will win.
"That’s how it should be. I don’t think anyone in this room is afraid of the battle of ideas. I’m not.
"Our last majority lost its way when it focused more on winning the vote than winning the argument.
"That’s how things like earmarks became a problem. That’s why spending kept growing.
"Let me be clear: we will not make the same mistake this time.  Not on my watch.
"When I spoke at CPAC last year, I said a new Republican majority would take on earmarks. Well, that was one of the first things we did. We banned them.
"I said we would post all bills online at least 72 hours before a vote and that we’d install cameras in the powerful Rules Committee. We did both.
"I said that while others mock the Tea Party and call them names, we would listen to them, stand with them, and walk among them. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.
"But as we work to keep our Pledge, I’m going to need your support every step along the way.
“Remember: we only have a majority in one half of one branch of government.
"Right now, Washington is still a Democrat-run town.
"To really make an impact going forward, we need to keep the momentum going.  We need the American people to stay engaged in this fight.
“The federal government is as big as it is today, touching all areas of life, because the Left is determined.
"Determined to spend more.  Determined to tax more.  And determined to keep growing the size of Washington.
"We need to be equally determined to stop them.
"We need to be equally determined to build the smaller, less costly, more accountable government that the American people want and deserve.
"I know I am.  And I know you are.  And I look forward to continuing to work with you on this journey.
"So thank you again for this honor.
"Thank you for all that you’ve done for our conservative cause, all that you’re doing, and all that I know you will do in the year ahead.
"God bless."

Why Palin snubbed CPAC — again

The news that Sarah Palin won’t be attending CPAC next week doesn’t come as much surprise. For those keeping score, she’s now been invited three times — and said no thanks each time.
A Palin aide did not immediately return a request to explain why, but her reasoning is pretty evident.
A Palin source bashed CPAC and its leader David Keene in an interview last year with POLITICO announcing that the former governor wouldn’t be attending – even though CPAC had listed her as an invited guest for the second year in a row. The source called the annual gathering an example "special interests over core beliefs" and "pocketbook over policy."
"That's not what CPAC should be about and people are tiring," the source said. "Palin is taking a stance against this just as she did in Alaska."
The criticism of CPAC was fueled by a report that David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, had asked FedEx for between $2 million and $3 million to get the group's support in a bitter battle on Capitol Hill with rival UPS. This was not the first reported allegation of Keene selling his influence with the conservative base, and is a large part of the reason why the ACU and its annual conference have waned in influence over the years.
The previous year, Palin’s camp and CPAC feuded over them listing her as a speaker at the conference despite the fact that she had not confirmed.
And Keene fueled the squabble between the two camps two years ago, when he told Newsmax that Palin was “whining” about negative press coverage.
Add the personal drama to the fact that several other conservatives – including Jim DeMint and Marco Rubio – are skipping the conference this year, and it’s pretty clear that Palin showing up was never in the cards

Who's Coming to CPAC?

CPAC


  • Click here to find out more!

Thursday, February 10, 2011 | 11:18 a.m.

Today kicks off three days of conservative pageantry at the 38th annual Conservative Political Action Conference, held at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington. The large field of potential candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 will be well represented, but a major sideshow is stealing some attention. Some conservative leaders are boycotting the event in protest of the gay rights group GOProud's participation, among others. We take a look at the regulars, the surprise guests, and the surprise absences of this year’s CPAC.

Surprise show: “The Donald.” Businessman Donald Trump was a last-minute addition to the CPAC roster, though he’s been mulling over a presidential bid. He will address the conference at 3 p.m. on Thursday and speak about the lack of respect America is getting from other countries, particularly China.

Show: Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., the tea party's spokeswoman on the State of the Union address, kicked off the event on Thursday.

No show: Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, will sit out CPAC for a third year.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
Show: Newt Gingrich, House speaker during the Clinton era, delivered Thursday's lunch address. Gingrich continues to tease the media and hint at a presidential run, but he has yet to confirm his candidacy.

No show: Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, has blasted the conference for becoming "increasingly more libertarian."

Show: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, tainted by his comments diluting the suffering of blacks during segregation, told CNN that he is "running until he says he's not."

No show: Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is boycotting the conference based on its inclusion of Republican gay groups, such as GOProud.

Chet Susslin
Show: Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty preaches both fiscal and social conservatism. He may be working this weekend to shake off the moderate label he’s inherited from his home state. Tim Alberta at National Journal's Hotline says Pawlenty “probably has the most to gain from his CPAC appearance.”

Keeping CPAC a big tent

By David Keene - 02/07/11 05:54 PM ET


As Americans pause this week to remember Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth, thousands of conservative activists are preparing to descend on Washington for the 38th annual CPAC, or Conservative Political Action Conference.
Last year attendance broke 10,000 for the first time, hundreds of thousands watched the proceedings on C-SPAN and nearly a million more Americans watched the conference over the Internet. This year, pre-conference registration is running 15 percent over 2010 numbers.
Ronald Reagan spoke at the very first conference in 1973 to a mere 125 people. He went on to speak at 17 CPACs as private citizen and president. At CPAC 1975, Reagan delivered his famous speech calling for a Republican Party that would “march under a banner of bold colors rather than pale pastels,” and CPAC 1981 was one of his first stops after his inauguration as president.
As he prepared to attend that conference, the new president was asked, “Why CPAC?” He responded that CPAC’s importance to him and to the movement could never be underestimated, because the folks he spoke to there were the people who made him president. In relating the story during his speech, Reagan paraphrased a country song in saying he believed in “dancing with who brung you.”
CPAC 2011 has attracted more co-sponsors, participating organizations, press and registrants than ever before at a time when conservatives are more active and demanding of the politicians they support. They’ve lived through bad times and good, witnessed electoral victory and defeat, but have never given up on their principles or been driven from the political battlefield by their opponents. CPAC participants share Reagan’s optimism about the future and his concern that all could be lost if conservatives don’t get up each morning willing to advance the principles that unite them.
The modern conservative movement has from its inception been a coalition that brings together men and women who share a basic belief in human freedom, traditional values and a love of country based on an appreciation of the nation’s founding documents. At the same time, they’ve always been a fractious bunch, arguing among themselves over substance, philosophy and strategy.
Ronald Reagan once said that anyone who agreed with us 80 percent of the time should be included in the movement. Likewise, the American Conservative Union ratings classify any member of Congress who votes “right” 80 percent of the time on the legislation on which we base our scores as a conservative.
And yet, conservatives have tried to banish from the movement those with whom they’ve disagreed on issues they consider all-important. William F. Buckley Jr., ecumenical on most questions, conducted a decade-long effort to force followers of Ayn Rand out because of her atheism. Buckley himself was later targeted by some because he came to favor the legalization of marijuana and believed in compulsory national service.
Even the staunchest conservatives disagree on important issues, including trade, immigration, America’s role in the world and the delicate balance between individual rights and national security. Even the best-known conservatives find themselves in a distinct minority on some questions — Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma supports earmarks; Rep. Steve King of Iowa and former Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia ardently support ethanol subsidies.
Many issues are debated at CPAC, and sometimes the movement view on vital issues shifts as a result of those and other debates. In the early days of the movement, for example, most conservatives were “pro-choice.” Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan reflected this view, but eventually most conservatives came to believe in the right-to-life position and support of the pro-life cause has become a consensus position within the movement, though we don’t drive those who disagree with us on this one issue, albeit vital, into the outer darkness.
This year, some religious and social conservatives have raised questions about the propriety of including an organization of gay conservatives, arguing that the group’s mere presence undermines the movement. This in spite of the fact that the group, while differing with the rest of us on issues affecting gays, is firmly conservative on almost all other matters. Those attending the conference will find no weakening of the movement’s consensus belief in traditional marriage or on the movement stance on other issues on which there is a consensus among, say, 80 percent of the movement. 
Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union and a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a Washington-based governmental consulting firm.

Conservatives Meet in Washington for CPAC




When I can add the full video from c-span I will mean while you can click the links below and listen to the speeches.  This goes on For three days  February 10 - 12, 2011. They talk about the Constitution like it was a mere piece of paper with words on it.  It is a Sham, this conference.  This Tea Party........


Broadcast Resumes Friday @ 9AM
With the 2012 presidential election almost a year away, GOP hopefuls are attending the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to listen to high profile politicians and discuss the conservative movement.
Earlier, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), founder of the U.S. House Tea Party Caucus, delivered the opening address in which she celebrated Republican gains in 2010 and rallied the audience with the prospect of winning back the White House and Senate in 2012. Rep. Bachmann also referred to the nation's debt and a call to repeal the health care legislation.
Then, Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) addressed attendees, calling on conservatives to stay devoted to their principles. He talked about legislative issues facing the Senate, saying he would continue to fight health care legislation. He went on to say that he believes the proposed campaign finance legislation is unconstitutional and used the example of the recent Supreme Court case of “Citizens United” as evidence supporting changes that scale back rules governing campaign donations.
Following Sen. McConnell’s remarks was former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who laid out seven steps that President Obama can take to move to the political center and criticized Time magazine's recent cover story comparing Presidents Obama and Reagan, saying “President Obama is no Ronald Reagan.”
In the afternoon session, Donald Trump didn’t directly answer rumors on his possible run for the Republican presidential nomination, simply saying that if he runs for the White House -- and wins – then "America will be respected again" and vowed to take money back from countries that “are screwing us.”
Towards the end of his remarks he spoke out against Rep. Ron Paul, saying that though he was a nice guy there was no way he could become president.
The representative’s son, Sen. Rand Paul, was the next speaker after Trump, while House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) closed today’s afternoon session.
This evening Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) addressed attendees during the evening banquet. The Congressman received the John Ashbrook Award, named after the late Ohio Republican Congressman who served in the U.S. House for 21 years and was one of the founders & chairmen of the American Conservative Union.



Archived Video of CPAC 2011 Speeches

CPAC 2011 Live Broadcast Has Concluded. 
Thanks to everyone that watched!

Straw Poll Rep. Ron Paul (TX) wins CPAC 2011 Straw Poll, Former Gov. Mitt Romney Second


Archived Videos - Saturday, February 12, 2011


Archived Videos - Friday, February 11, 2011



Archived Videos - Thursday, February 10, 2011



And this is only the first day, and the negativism
This is just Thursday


FEATURED VIDEOS


Donald Trump

CPAC 2011|2/10/2011
(13:56)

Hon. Rick Santorum

CPAC 2011|2/10/2011
(23:57)