==================================================================
The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
==================================================================

Research Department 
The John Birch Society 
birch@athenet.net 

==================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- June 12, 1995 
Copyright 1995 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated 
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913 
 
================================================================== 
 
ARTICLE: Front Page Sidebar -- Interview of Rep. J. Reese Hunter 
TITLE: One Legislator's Warning: Beware the Conference of the States 
INTERVIEWER: Robert W. Lee 
 
================================================================== 
 
On January 16, 1995, the Utah legislature became the first in the nation to
pass a Resolution of Participation in the Conference of the States proposed
by Utah Governor Mike Leavitt. Representative J. Reese Hunter, a fifth term
Republican, voted for the resolution, but is now urging lawmakers in other
states to oppose it. Dr. Hunter was interviewed for The New American by
Robert W. Lee. 
 
Q. Representative Hunter, what led you to support the Conference of the
States resolution in the first place? 
 
A. I was enthused when I first heard about the Conference. It was
publicized as a gathering to strengthen state authority under the Tenth
Amendment and pressure the federal government to obey the Constitution. I
favor those goals, so I let Governor Leavitt know that I supported his call
for the Conference. I visualized the states uniting to send Washington a
firm message that the time had come to put an end to unconstitutional
federal mandates, whether funded or unfunded. But as the proposal began to
unfold, a number of warning signs appeared. For example, there seemed to be
a disturbing number of similarities between the governor's plan and the
first Conference of the States in 1787 that became the constitutional
convention. 
 
Q. Then why did you vote for it? 
 
A. For a number of years now, I have been the chief sponsor of legislation
to repeal Utah's call for a constitutional convention to consider a
balanced budget amendment. Prior to the vote on the Conference of the
States resolution, I was concerned that the Conference could itself be
turned into a con-con. I asked for assurances that this would not be the
case, and was told that while it was not "intended" to be a con-con, it was
something new, so there was no 100 percent assurance. On the first day of
our legislative session, the Conference resolution was brought up on a
"fast track," well-oiled for immediate passage without hearings or
significant debate. The argument for such haste was that Governor Leavitt,
as instigator of the movement, should be first to sign a Resolution of
Participation into law. It was in that rush of the moment that I voted for
the resolution, as did all other members of the House and all but one
senator. 
 
Subsequently, I was able to study the issue in greater detail. I would not
vote for it today. From hindsight, I would have insisted that the
Conference goals be read before the vote was taken, and demanded
unambiguous answers regarding the "broad, fundamental, structural" changes
envisioned by the proponents of this movement. Such wholesale revision of
the Constitution is the very thing many of us have feared under an Article
V constitutional convention. 
 
Q. What, in your opinion, are the motives of those promoting the Conference
of the States? 
 
A. I do not think two or three hundred legislators, along with the
governors, have any desire to damage our republic. I think for the most
part they really want less federal intervention. But I know some who think
that that means they should receive federal funding without federal
strings. But if the Constitution were amended to permit federal taxes to
pay for state welfare, educational, environmental, and health care
programs, then such an amendment would authorize that which is now
unconstitutional. This is not a problem of state-federal balance -- it is a
moral problem. It does not require innovative thinking to solve it, but
requires obedience to the best thinking ever given to mankind, the thinking
of Madison, Hamilton, and Washington as embodied in the original
Constitution. It depends wholly on the courage of state leaders to hold the
federal government to its enumerated powers and to enforce the Tenth
Amendment, the wording of which is crystal clear. Personally, I can think
of no way to add to the United States Constitution without weakening it. 
 
Q. What are some of your other concerns about the Conference? 
 
A. Well, for one thing, I could not accept the proposal that has been
discussed to allow the federal courts to make the decision whether a power
is reserved to the states, or to the people, instead of to the federal
government. That is one of the most treacherous proposals I have ever heard
of. 
 
Q. Did the promoters of the Conference actually suggest that? 
 
A. The Council of State Governments is one of the convening organizations
for the Conference. Back in 1989, one of its reports proposed that the
Tenth Amendment be changed to add the words: "Whether a power is one
reserved to the States, or to the people, shall be decided by the Courts."
Federal powers are clearly delineated in the Constitution. Authorizing the
federal judiciary to make such determinations would simply tip the scales
further in favor of federal usurpation of power contrary to the Tenth
Amendment's clear intent. 
 
Q. What else? 
 
A. I do not quite understand why proponents of the Conference believe that
there is a need for resolution-empowered delegates. Why can't the states
simply appropriate the expenses of governors and legislators who may desire
to meet with other states and propose solutions to the problem of federal
usurpation? Why the need for legislation? Why an appointed delegation? That
is the crux of this whole controversy. A majority of states, acting in
unison by simply agreeing to accomplish a goal, would gain Washington's
attention. I would not only favor, but would be delighted to attend, a
conference devoted to reaching agreement on refusing, for example, to
enforce unconstitutional federal edicts. 
 
It bothers me that advocates of the Conference seem to think that our
problem is a flawed Constitution that needs repair. Such is not the case. I
am convinced that there are no structural flaws in the Constitution that
are precluding the states from taking effective collective action if most
truly wish to do so. Rather than a step toward constitutional government, I
fear that the Conference movement as presently planned could result in
changes in our form of government that would merely give states much of the
unconstitutional power now being wielded by Washington. We need less
government at all levels, not simply big government spread around. Yet the
structural changes advocated by the Council of State Governments and other
Conference supporters would not, so far as I have been able to determine,
diminish federal power or reduce the overall size or expense of government.
 
I also wonder why the Conference proponents are so intent on the need for
26 states before convening the Conference. Would a message from half the
states be so inadequate that they would drop the entire program for lack of
one state's participation? The historical precedent is that 51 percent of
the original 13 states formed the constitutional majority that met to
simply amend the Articles of Confederation, but eventually replaced the
Articles with a new Constitution. Similarly, the Constitution could be
drastically changed or replaced by the actions of another conference, or
convention, composed of delegates officially empowered to represent "We the
people...." 
 
The position papers that underpin the Conference movement indicate that
they are pursuing a process that circumvents the normal procedures of an
Article V convention. They state that the "power is in the process," which
is exactly the problem. It is the process that consolidates and focuses
state power at the federal level, and it is the same power that created our
existing government, no matter what name it is given. 
 
Q. What advice do you have for legislators in states which have not yet
acted on the Conference resolution? 
 
A. It is important to keep the pressure on, since advocates of the
Conference will be making every attempt next year to win back the states
where it lost, and gain approval in those states that took no action in
1995. I would urge my colleagues in other states to do their homework
thoroughly, so they do not make the mistake of voting for something that is
likely to do far more harm than good to our Constitution, and therefore to
our county. 
 
END 
 
================================================================== 
 
THE NEW AMERICAN -- June 12, 1995 
Copyright 1995 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated 
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913 
 
SUBSCRIPTIONS: $39.00/year (26 issues) 
 
WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational
purposes to allow individual file transfer and non-commercial mail-list
transfer only. All other copyright privileges are reserved. Address
reposting requests to <birch@athenet.net> or the above address. 
 
================================================================== 
