Posted by Tony DeMott on 12/08/10

The following legislators voted for SB 0212 (view votes here) and HB 4431 (view votes here) which give local police civil immunity for confiscating guns.

SENATE DEMOCRATS

SENATE REPUBLICANS

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

HOUSE REPUBLICANS

Posted 12/08/10 achalmers3 South Lyon, MI

So Mike Bishop who I like (but not so much anymore) and my State Rep, Hugh Crawford, voted for this? I'm literally sick about this!

Posted by Tony DeMott on 10/17/10
Last updated 11/20/10

You should also read "McCotter Does Not Rock" from the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Posted 10/17/10 achalmers3 South Lyon, MI

Wow! So my congressman has voted for almost $2 trillion in legislation that does nothing for me? That's just wonderful. And I think it's a big deal that I might run for South Lyon city council next year. Maybe I should run for congress. Quick question for anyone reading this blog. How can I -- as a liberty-minded, austrian economist, libertarian -- make a difference at the local level, say a city council position? I just can wrap my head around it.

Posted 10/18/10 Tony DeMott Ypsilanti, MI

Starting out at City Council is the way to go. The first task would probably be to go through the budget and find out what the city should not be paying for. I would also, at the same time find out what kind of fees the city is charging small vendors and small business and get rid of those. This list is not completed. there are many more pieces of legislation that we are still analyzing. The bottom line amount will go up.

Posted 10/19/10 patriot4liberty Marine City, MI

@ achalmers3: Good luck on your City Council bid next year. It is nice to see some Austrian thinkers trying to apply that on a local level. I believe in "trickle up" economics--get them on your side locally, then it can be applied at higher and higher levels of government!

Posted 11/02/10 achalmers3 South Lyon, MI

Thanks Tony and Paula. Sorry I didn't reply back. I've been busy as of late. I think I'm going to make a run at city council next year in South Lyon. I do know of some Campaign for Liberty folks in the area so maybe I can get some volunteers to help me. Any suggestions are more than welcome. Thanks in advance.

Posted 01/03/11 Who is John Galt Annapolis, MD

Thanks for the work on this, Tony. Please keep up the good work. -Mike

Posted 01/12/11 CJLKAS Belleville, MI

If you are running in a major party (ie Republican), there will be a group of local precinct delegates in your city. (Sometimes as many as 1 per precinct) In addition to a ready-made group of possible volunteers, many of these people have been in the game for years, and can give you great campaigning ideas. Another benefit is introducing C4L members to GOP members in a cooperative effort, and all acting together to Bring the GOP back to its roots, as Dr. Paul has advocated.

Posted by Tony DeMott on 09/28/10
Last updated 09/28/10

• House Bill 6374 - Licensing and continuing education
  • Sponsored by Pam Byrnes, No cosponsors from what I can see.
  • This has passed the state house. View the votes here.
  • It is now in the Senate Economic Development and Regulatory Reform Committee.
  • 100% of the Democrats in the house voted for this
  • 73% of the Republicans voted for this.
  • Analysis

This is another tax.  Mandating continuing education for highly educated people is nothing but a money grab.  The reasoning for this is that the state needs to protect us. 

There is no need for this.  The free market handles this just fine. 

By putting an additional burden on the taxpayer (yes this cost gets past to us) it drives up cost, and reduces competition.

 From an article on Mises.org

• The stated goals of most such regulation, safety and skills validation, are legitimate and desirable. The practical and political motivation for introducing such regulation, however, is typically fees (licensing tax collection) and trade protectionism (the establishment of technical barriers to the free migration of trade labor resources across state and municipal boundaries).

Proposed Action

Call the Senate Economic Development and Regulatory Reform Committee and tell them to vote no on this legislation.

• Alan Sanborn
  • (517) 373-7670
  • senasanborn@senate.michigan.gov
• Randy Richardville
  • (517) 373-3543
  • SenRRichardville@senate.michigan.gov
• Jason Allen
  • (517) 373-2413
  • senjallen@senate.michigan.gov
• Judd Gilbert
  • (517) 373-7708
  • senjgilbert@senate.michigan.gov
• Buzz Thomas
  • (517) 373-7918
  •  senbthomas@senate.michigan.gov
• Tupac Hunter
  • (517) 373-0994
  • SenTAHunter@senate.michigan.gov
• Gilda Jacobs
  • (517) 373-7888
  • sengjacobs@senate.michigan.gov

Posted by Tony DeMott on 09/26/10

The first thing that you should know here is that Michelle McManus sponsored this legislation.  Likely after our lobbying of Ruth Johnson on this issue, Senator McManus also got the information we were putting out.

I don't know if our efforts changed her mind or not but she did change her mind.  Here is her statement at the committee hearing against her own bills.

SB 1371-72

Commerce Cmte

September 21, 2010

I would like to thank Senator Allen for holding this hearing today. 

As the sponsor of Senate bills 1371 and 1372, I had requested that they NOT be added to the committee's agenda

but it is my understanding that over my objections,

the Senate Majority Leader has personally instructed the Chair to hold a hearing on them. 

I sympathize with the Chair. 

These bills are NOT ready for consideration by the committee. 

They are being considered today due to a desire by the Majority Leader to cater to certain members of the public. 

Serious concerns regarding the E-Verify program have been brought to my attention since I introduced these bills and before they should be considered,

drastic changes should be made.

In Michigan's troubled economy,

the very LAST THING this body should be doing

is to give our employers more bureaucratic red tape

-especially in light of the fact that E-verify is plagued by very serious problems.

The top problem with e-verify

is that it fails to detect one out of every two illegal workers! 

In a December 2009 report to the US Dept of Human Services,

because e-verify can't confirm whether information from workers is truly their own,

as many as 54% of unauthorized workers are able to obtain employment by committing identity theft of document fraud. 

To put it simply, the Majority Leader is supporting a scheme where a person holding a Social Security card that doesn't belong to them would go completely undetected by the system!

That was never my intent when I introduced this package. 

The legislative process allows for information to be gathered and minds to be changed. 

Mine has been changed. 

I no longer support these bills as drafted and encourage all of you to vote in opposition should they be brought forward for a vote. 

In my entire career here in the legislature,

I have never been so disappointed in the process a bill has taken.

I regret that I needed to be here before you today in opposition to bills I sponsored.

Posted 12/10/10 achalmers3 South Lyon, MI

The majority leader McManus is talking about would be Mike Bishop?

Posted by Tony DeMott on 09/26/10
Last updated 09/26/10

This is an article by Tom DeWeese who gave us permission to repost.

In December, 2008, my American Policy Center (APC) led a fight to stop Ohio from becoming the 33rd state to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). In the 1980's 32 other states had passed Con Con resolutions for the specific purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment. Had that resolution passed the Ohio legislature, we would have been just one state away from such an event. We argued then that one cannot call a Con Con to discuss just one issue. Once a Con Con is in place, there is no controlling the agenda.

We fought to stop the Con Con because of fear. Today there is massive ignorance among the American people about the Constitution. Worse, there are powerful forces who consider that document to be antiquated and a hindrance to their vision of an all-powerful government. These things, and more, make today the worst possible time in our nation's history to mess with the greatest governing document of all time.

We stopped the effort in 2008, but the battle is on again as an even more determined plan is under way to gather support from the nation's governors and state legislatures to pass Con Con resolutions. Again, this is not the work of wild-eyed leftists intending to gut the Bill of Rights. This is an effort by conservative legislators who are alarmed by the growing power of government.

The new plan making its rounds in state capitals is much more ambitious than the 2008 Ohio resolution to simply discuss a balanced budget. Now an entire package of ten amendments to the Constitution is being proposed and promoted to state legislatures through a powerful and well-funded campaign.

The main groups pushing for a Con Con are the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative association of state legislators; and a new group calling itself the 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc, chaired by William Fruth, President of POLICOM Corporation, which provides independent economics research.

While ALEC is working behind the scenes to build support for a Con Con among state legislators, Fruth and his 10 Amendments for Freedom group has moved into the public eye to sell the Con Con idea to mainstream America. In March, Fruth kicked off his campaign by mailing out a slick, expensive package to conservative leaders and to over 7,000 state legislators.  The package contained a book written by Fruth entitled "10 Amendments for Freedom."

In the book, Fruth lays out an argument for the need for, not just a balanced budget amendment, but a total package of 10 Amendments to the Constitution including, the balanced budget; repay the national debt in 50 years; government transparency; line item veto; term limits for Congress; control illegal immigration; English -speaking nation; no foreign law shall bind us; government restraint (preventing the Federal Government from growth beyond constitutional powers; and finally, an amendment declaring "in God we trust." Of course, there is no doubt that these amendments have great appeal for most conservatives, answering their growing frustration and fear of government expansion.

Arguing that Congress "will not likely take any action to cause the 10 Amendments for Freedom to become law of the land," Fruth calls for all ten amendments to be packaged by state legislatures to be passed in a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. His package would include specific instructions to Congress as to how the delegates would be selected and outlining rules that would be enforced to assure only the ten amendments would be voted on.

Arguing the advantages of the Con Con, Fruth says, "Can you imagine the excitement in the nation leading up to the Convention? Schools will have to dust off history books which teach how our nation was founded. Many people for the first time will read the Constitution. The issue will be discussed at length, exposing what happened to our country over the years."

Fruth then scoffs at our fears of a Con Con and efforts to stop it. He says, "Simply, it is not reasonable to assume there can be enough delegates send to a convention who will propose amendments which 'repeal the bill of rights' or 'legalize socialism.' Even if they did, the amendments would never be ratified," concludes Fruth.

Anticipating opposition to his scheme for a Con Con, Fruth says that those who opposed the effort in the 1980's, to call for a Con Con for a balanced budget amendment, told the American people that the delegates at the convention can "change the Constitution any way they want." Argues Fruth, "We know that is not true." He says, "it is both irresponsible and disingenuous for anyone to publicly say that the convention can change the Constitution." And he says, "any recommended changes must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

These are the arguments now being presented to every single state legislator and Governor in the nation as Fruth and ALEC put on a full-court-press to call for a Constitutional Convention. While the intention may be an honest desire to reign in the power of government, the fact remains that every one of these arguments for a Con Con is wrong.

The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States' hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to discuss only a specific issue like a balanced budget - or the whole package offered by the 10 Amendments for Freedom group -- is absolu tely impossible. Instead, once the convention starts, the delegates become super delegates which can take any action they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table and the delegate s can take a "scalpel" (pen) to it and change any section , or even the entire document if they desire.

What proof do I offer? Here are the exact words of Article V of the Constitution:  "...on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, (Congress) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which...shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States."

Article V gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide. It does not matter if the states passed resolutions as Fruth proposes, containing absolute guidelines for delegate selection. The Constitution provides no rules - it is up to Congress to decide how delegates are selected and what qualifications they will have. The guidelines proposed by Fruth carry absolutely no weight in the final process - even if every state passes the exact same resolution including those rules. Again, Article V simply says that when 34 states have called for a Con Con the Congress "shall call a Convention..." Period.

And there is more legal proof in support of the argument that delegates are not bound by an instructions or resolutions from the states. First, of course, is the famous letter written by former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum. In the letter Burger writes, "...there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.  The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederated Congress..."

And there is more legal documentation proving that Congress or the states can control the agenda of a Con Con. Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. The following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Con Con. (From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9) "The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vesting in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) And, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5). The foot-note numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made. (1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v Fredericks (11 So. 472); (2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v Hill (14N.W. 738); (3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v Jackson (6 W. Va. 613); (4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v Autry (91 p. 193); (5) Texas (1912) Cox v Robison (150 S.W.1149).

Clearly, the position put forth by Fruth, and ALEC, that state legislatures can pass a resolution dictating the rules of the Con Con is simply wrong.

Delegate selection is another dangerous trap waiting to spring. Again, Article V provides no guidelines. The process is left for Congress to decide. That means the current Congress could control the entire delegate selection. Under the rules that Congress could set, States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to choose delegates , then what would be the method? Again, Congress will decide. Will the governor or the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral panel or blue ribbon commission?

Or could it be a plebecite - a vote of the people? If so, then who would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of "enfranchisement ," allow all citizens , and potentially foreign nationals (illegal immigrants) to vote for this "special election?" There are no guidelines and anything is possible.

And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called "proportional representation" of all special interest groups - NGO's? Will some be excluded because of "extreme" convictions? Of course, according to the Federal Departme nt of Homeland Security, "extreme convictions " includes those who want to protect the Constitution. So, what will the criteria for eligible delegates be? All of these choices would be made by Congress - that same one now controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

But again, none of that will matter, according to those calling for the Con Con. William Fruth argues that no matter what such a convention does, it still must be ratified by two- thirds of the states, making it very difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history lesson is in order.

There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation - that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a difficult time performing commerce among themselves. So it was decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected , some delegations were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing else beyond the commerce issue.

However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.

Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. These are the people who will decide the rules for the convention, including delegate selection. Keep in mind, these are the people who just managed to ram through a health "reform" bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed. These are the same people who managed to pass the bailout package opposed (according to polls) by almost 80% of the American people.

Do you trust them to follow the rules dictated by state legislatures? Do you think Pelosi and Reid would pass up an opportunity to set their own rules to guarantee a Constitution to their liking? Do you think for one minute that they would take any steps to protect our Constitution? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to foreign laws to assure our own laws are worthy. We live in an era when many believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. Barack Obama has expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events. Pelosi and her cohorts are itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has shown, once a Con Con is called, delegates (picked though a Pelosi process) can do anything they want to it, including writing a completely new document.

And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce , the states still must ratify it - thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land - until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used - even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document produced by the Con Con said ratification only required a vote of Congress - or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection by the states.

And rather than an excitement in the nation with a rebirth of study of the Constitution, as Furth envisions, there would in fact be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle over the process, guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It's not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution.

These are the reasons why I, and many others around the nation, adamantly oppose a Constitutional Convention at this time. We fear a Con Con because the subject matter cannot be controlled. And if the worst happens, there is no guarantee that we can stop ratification. There has never been a worse time in the nation's history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form of government. That new document, as precedence has shown, could be enforced without ratification by the states. Remember, our current Constitution was not ratified by the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation, but by an Article V that wasn't yet law of the land. Now that the precedence is there, it can happen again. The Pelosi's of the nation, proven to have the power and the will to twist any issue or initiative as they desire, are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a Con Con. 

No doubt there is great need for several of the amendments Fruth and his group propose. But he seems to ignore the fact that there is a powerful, organized opposition.  Again, I call your attention to the continuing battle over Health Care. That's child's play compared to what will happen in a Con Con. Do Americans really want to risk that in these uncertain times? Every freedom -loving American must stand up against this misguided call for a Con Con. Tell your state legislators NO.

Posted 09/27/10 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Wow, now that you put it this way I see no reason to support such an event as the Constitutional Convention. My biggest complaint about this is I see more about the constitution and these supposed processes that don’t verses do any good at all. I keep wondering why is it these cannot be changed to work? How about any decision made must be in the direction of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. After all isn’t this the desired direction? Life – all living. Liberty- no Government control, freedom from Government. Pursuit of Happiness- To produce products that include all life and all liberty and its accomplishments. To be visible by all those affected, to bring about greater experiences that only promotes Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. All other actions are false and will be removed by we the people who agree to such terms. Those not agreeing may move to England to finish out their socialist lives. That would be too clear cut now wouldn’t it, to create a document that leaves no questions and total clarity. Only the founders were capable of such documents, right? When do we take out all the complex crap shoved in our faces for centuries? When do we form documents that do no more than allow us to show and verify our results in this direction? How long do we take the path of destruction given to us by idiotic Furrows Rule of the ages? Interpretations and arguments tell us no clear document exists, now lets FIX IT!

Posted 09/27/10 dobropet Texas City, TX

Would this include what Bob Shultz of the "We The People Foundation" is attempting to do with the articles of freedom? Or is his effort of another sort?

Posted 09/27/10 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

Article V of the Constitution requires ratification by three quarters of the states (today 38 states).

Posted 09/27/10 Tony DeMott Ypsilanti, MI

Dobropet: I have heard that Bob Shultz is advocating for a National Con Con. I was surprised when I heard that. I am a long time member of We the People, I was one of the plaintiffs on the National Clean Election Lawsuit, and helped serve the petitions for redress of grievances. The only thing I can say is nobody is perfect. I would fight Mr. Shultz on this because, if he is advocating this, he is wrong on this issue. We cannot get so enamored with our leaders that they no longer are subject to question. MichaelBarry: The article addressed you comment. It shows that it is not necessary to have three quarters of the states ratify.

Posted 09/27/10 BillNM , NM

Of course the central government hasn't paid any attention to the Constitution since 1789. They can produce all the mischief they like without a con con. So, if the con con is not the answer, then what is? We tried to resign once before and the tyrants in the North sent in Sherman and his butchers involving the nation in total war. Can we expect less if we try again?

Posted 09/28/10 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

My comment is directed to this passage: And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce , the states still must ratify it - thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land - until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used - even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. It seems to me that had Article V been used ratification would have required three fourths of the states. But, perhaps there is something here which I am missing. My understanding is that a Constitutional Convention is convened with two thirds of the states and anything which it produces must be ratified by three fourths of the states.

Posted 09/28/10 celticreeler Rolla, MO

WHAT A GREAT POST. Thank you very much. I agree completely. The thing I've worried about for a year or more is about the delegate selection--the credentials and method are not delineated at all in the Constitution. This would likely become a completely opaque process, administered by a few anointed individuals, and criteria would be such things as I am scared witless to contemplate. Your point about the Articles of Confederation still being in effect, requiring 100% agreement by states to change it, when Constitution was put in its place with 2/3 ratification, should be a warning to everyone.

Posted 09/28/10 dobropet Texas City, TX

Thanks for the feedback, although I had been completely enamored at the time with Mr. Shultzs work with the Tax Honesty movement, I wasn't quite vested in the interest of the Articles of Freedom. I had been questioning and investigating alot of work on the subject and didn't find any other individual attempting this process, which is what led to my skepticism of the proposal. I'm relieved about seeing what such a proposal could entail for Americans, and how our entire Constitutional structure could evaporate within such a process. Excellent post.

Posted 10/18/10 Tony DeMott Ypsilanti, MI

MichaelBarry, The example given was that they did not use the current law of the land to ratify in 1776. The implication is that they won't use the current law of the land if they give us a new constitution this time around either. currently the law of the land says they need 3/4ths of the states to ratify. what if they ignore that like they did previously?