Category: Constitution

Stop Trojan Horse SJR 87

Urgent:  Please ask your Senator and House member to stop SJR87.

RE: SJR 87 asking for term limits via Constitutional Convention

In recognition of the fact that an Article V Convention is not a solution, but rather a Trojan Horse, both Maryland and New Mexico rescinded all previous calls for a Con Con during the first week of April, 2017.

Many well-intentioned conservatives cling to a Convention as a solution to problems our country faces.  However, numerous extremely radical, progressive and socialist organizations are also fighting for an Article V Convention with George Soros’ money and massive media outreach.  Constitutional scholars* (see below) and political experience confirm that a Constitutional Convention once convened would be a law unto itself.  Therefore, it could well put at risk some of our most cherished freedoms and even our entire Constitution.

  • COS advocates cover the full spectrum of ideologies and include hundreds of organizations in the Move to Amend coalition like Peace groups (Watch out Second Amendment.), communist fronts, Sierra Club, Code Pink, Occupy groups, and Wolf-PAC, which wants to publicly finance elections. Some toy with ideas like direct democracy and the popular vote, while others never publicly state what they would seek from a convention.  All that these groups have been able to agree upon so far is the desire to hold a COS.
  • A COS cannot be limited, since there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution and no law to restrict its purpose, procedures, agenda, duration or election of delegates.
  • There is no way to assure that COS delegates would obey any restrictions placed on them by the states. They may not have to run for re-election and thus would be free from accountability to the public.
  • Term limits in states such as Missouri have given unelected bureaucrats the upper hand with procedural and institutional knowledge.  In Alabama, state employees lobbying the Alabama legislature already seem disproportionate to the private sector.  How much worse will it be to give the lifetime bureaucrats in DC even more power and control over a frequently changing Congress?
  • There is no stopgap for preventing ill-conceived constitutional changes from being ratified by 38 or more states. Modern communications capability gives moneyed special interests the ability to whip the populace up with emotional rhetoric to get them to vote for ideas that test well in focus groups rather than those that have survived the test of time.
  • We have for so long neglected to truly educate our children on the Foundational events and documents that created the United States of America that many now believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights, rather than being documents based on the careful study of thousands of years of human behavior, are outdated and irrelevant. It would be easy to stir up those so uneducated into a popular frenzy of support for any number of amendments that would fundamentally change our country.

Let’s limit terms as needed at the ballot box and strive harder to observe the Constitution that we have.   PLEASE OPPOSE SJR87.

Following are links for sound arguments against the various forms of legislation related to a Constitutional Convention.  They are short and logical.  Hope you find them helpful in speaking with your state legislators.

Links for arguments COS against, CFA WP, Term Limits, and general talking points.

Blessings,

Eunie Smith

*At a minimum…the Federal Judiciary, including The Supreme Court, will have to resolve the inevitable disputes over which branch and level of government may be entrusted to decide each of the many questions left open by Article V.”
— Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School  (affirmed by email 4/7/2017)

“…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 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 Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose’.”  Chief Justice Warren Burger in letter to Phyllis Schlafly.

“Judges and lawyers are ‘building a bridge’ to evil” by Dr. John Killian

By Dr. John Killian, pastor of Maytown Baptist Church and the former president of the Alabama Baptist State Convention

Remember the classic WWII movie about the persistent British colonel who demanded that the Japanese POW Camp Commandant adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention prohibiting the torture of officers? The Japanese Commandant ended up giving in to the colonel’s consistent stand.

It’s a story about principle, about standing for the rule of law, and about enemies respecting that resolve. But there’s a painful twist. After winning over the Japanese Commandant, British POWs (the colonel’s men), work to construct a bridge over the River Kwai, which will be used to bring war materials to the Japanese Army. Perhaps unknowingly, perhaps after a series of excuses, the colonel loses sight of the bigger picture: the Japanese Army is the sworn enemy of Great Britain and the Colonel is duty-bound to defend his country.

Even as he champions the rule of law before the Japanese Commandant, the British colonel is violating the very principle he claims to promote as he builds the bridge to his nation’s demise. At the end of the movie, after fighting his American allies’ attempt to destroy the bridge, he comes to his senses, cries “what have I done?” and detonates the bridge.

Today in America, forces of evil – antithetical to God’s moral law that defined American and British common law for centuries and antithetical to the principles of federalism which define our nation’s constitution – have hijacked the legal system. Using federal courts and transfigured ideals of “law” and “justice,” these forces pressure our lawyers and judges to ensure that what is wrong is considered right and that immorality is “held in honor by all.” They make the mistake of the British colonel: defying the rule of law as they appear to champion it, while building a bridge for their enemies.

So, keep building the bridge Christian lawyers and judges. Keep working in the name of “justice” to ensure the rule of the sort of law that places helpless children who need a father and a mother in the homes of two homosexuals and force custody decisions in favor of homosexuals. Work to advance the immoral sexual education of our school children! Approve that false definition of “equality” that ousts those “bigots” who believe that homosexuality is sinful and harmful for an individual’s body and soul, from their businesses, their ministries, and their public offices! Substitute the Constitution’s supremacy for the supremacy of federal judges! And, see to it that the moral law of God never again invades the territory of our great American legal system!

Build the bridge to the destruction of all you claim to hold dear and on the brink of eternity – with American society in shreds, souls that don’t know Christ dying in sin, and a church devoid of relevance in the public square – perhaps you’ll still have time to cry, “what have I done?”

Or, just let go of your Bible chains! You have nothing to lose but your soul.

 

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/09/judges_and_lawyers_are_buildin.html#incart_river_index

Ed Martin’s Slander Against Eagle Forum of Alabama

Dear friends and supporters,

I am writing you to set the record straight.  You may have received an email from Ed Martin, who has been employed for approximately 16 months by the National Eagle Forum board on which I serve.  He made statements against me personally as well as Eagle Forum of Alabama. These statements from Mr. Martin are slanderous, libelous and without merit. Does it make sense that six long term board members with a total of 219 years of collective volunteer service to the organization would “hijack Eagle Forum”?  (I have personally served over 44 years.) Certainly not!  These board members have fought tirelessly for many years for the values we hold dear under the leadership of Phyllis Schlafly.

Phyllis Schlafly nominated me to the position which I have served for many years as First Vice President of the National Eagle Forum C4 Board. To accuse me of calling for her removal is also slanderous, libelous and without merit.  Her legacy is legendary and ongoing. It is because of our love and respect for Phyllis and our years of camaraderie that we remain dedicated to protecting her legacy and Eagle Forum.

The “rogue meeting” which Mr. Martin references is a duly called meeting of the full board of directors to conduct necessary board business.  The Martin email with its baseless name calling was not signed by Phyllis Schlafly and is totally uncharacteristic of Eagle Forum.  Eagle Forum has always been an organization that exemplified respectful dialogue and free speech.  The email was apparently designed to intimidate and to thwart six patriotic Americans from doing their fiduciary duty.  These women love God and country and have sacrificed selflessly as volunteers to serve both through Eagle Forum.  To make private Board matters public and slander these women in the process is unconscionable.

Mr. Martin’s letter asserts that Eagle Forum of Alabama “allowed Alabama to pass a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) in 2015.”  While Eagle Forum of Alabama’s goal is to influence the legislature on a myriad of public policy issues, it is beyond absurd to hold this organization accountable for all actions of the state legislature. As you well know, Eagle Forum of Alabama and I personally have faithfully fought any form of Con Con brought to Alabama since our founding. Eagle Forum of Alabama’s reputation of opposing Con Con is well known to those in Alabama. For examples, search our state chapter’s website (alabamaeagle.org) using the term “Constitutional Convention” where a smorgasbord of entries regarding our activities will be readily apparent.

Eagle Forum of Alabama is committed to protecting the integrity of America’s divinely inspired Constitution.  We were instrumental in the Alabama legislature’s resolution rescinding all Con Con calls as far back as 1981. On May 6, 2015, I sent a letter via email to Alabama legislators stating Eagle Forum of Alabama’s position against a Con Con. Included in that letter was Andy Schlafly’s statement against it, as well.  Please see the Con Con question contained in the attached candidate questionnaire and official response from Deborah Love, Executive Director of Eagle Forum of Alabama here.  It is well-known that Eagle Forum of Alabama has consistently opposed any call for a Federal Con Con as well as State Con Cons.

Eagle Forum of Alabama immediately calls on Mr. Martin to cease making slanderous remarks about Eagle Forum of Alabama. If Mr. Martin does not stop making these false statements, we will be forced to take further action on behalf of Eagle Forum of Alabama. If anyone has questions about Eagle Forum’s stance on issues or activities, please contact me or the staff of Eagle Forum of Alabama.  Please be assured that we will continue as we have done for more than 44 years to stand for truth.

Sincerely,

Eunie Smith
President

Eagle Forum of Alabama

Office (205) 879-7096

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Some of Eagle Forum of Alabama’s Educational Resources on the Dangers of Constitutional Conventions

This is not a comprehensive list of our publications or work on the dangers of Constitutional Convention.

 

Video Library Resources on Constitutional Convention

alabamaeagle.org/resources/video-library

 

Print Resources on Constitutional Convention and Constitutional Education.  All resources in print and media library are listed our website and are available to the public at no charge.

alabamaeagle.org/resources/print-library

 

Question on Candidate Questionnaire on Constitutional Conventions

http://alabamaeagle.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Stacy-Lee-George.pdf

 

Eagle Forum of Alabama Website Articles on Constitutional Conventions

http://alabamaeagle.org/?s=Constitutional+Convention

 

Executive Director, Deborah Love’s Response to Ed Martin’s False Accusations

http://alabamaeagle.org/2016/04/11/executive-director-deborah-loves-response-to-ed-martins-false-accusations

 

Eagle Forum of Alabama’s Position Statement

http://alabamaeagle.org/issues/alabama-constitution

 

Eunie Smith’s letter to Alabama Legislators on an Article V Convention

http://alabamaeagle.org/2016/04/11/andy-schlafly-on-a-compact-for-a-balanced-budget-article-v-convention

 

Andy Schlafly on a Compact for a Balanced Budget Article V Convention

The following letter regarding a Constitutional Convention was sent from Eunie Smith to Alabama Legislators on May 6, 2015. 

To:  Alabama Legislators
From:  Eunie Smith, President Eagle Forum of Alabama

Apparently you have received misinformation regarding Eagle Forum’s position on an Article V Convention.  Please read carefully Eagle Forum Board Member Andy Schlafly’s short statement following, forwarded to me on 5/3/15:

“I completely oppose an Article V Convention.  It is a dangerous threat to our values and our Nation.  Congress or judicial activism would likely require that the voting at such a convention be in proportion to population, and thereby dominated by liberal states.  They would probably put a right to abortion and homosexual marriage into the Constitution, and repeal the Second Amendment.  There is nothing good that can result from an Article V Convention, because Congress and the Courts will not feel restrained by a new amendment any more than they comply with existing text.  Even proposing an Article V Convention has the harmful effect of devaluing the Constitution we cherish.

The original Constitutional Convention was made possible by rules of secrecy against media interference.  That is impossible today, and thus the liberal media would obtain the result it wants.  Pinning one’s hopes on an Article V Convention today is like a bankrupt man turning to gambling to solve his family’s financial problems.  Hard work, in electing good people who defend our existing Constitution, is what is needed.  The pie-in-the-sky, dangerous proposal of an Article V Convention should be rejected.  (11/16/2014)”

Andrew L. Schlafly, Esq.
Attorney who practices before the U.S. Supreme Court and twelve U.S. Courts of Appeal; General Counsel of the Assn. of American Physicians & Surgeons (oldest conservative group in the U.S.); A leading attorney in federal litigation against abortion; For six consecutive years, 2009-2014, have led busloads of teenagers to the March for Life in D.C.; Contact:  aschlafly@aol.com

Proponents of a Constitutional Convention have insisted that a Convention could be limited to the one issue of a Balanced Budget.  However, Yellowhammer quoted the House Sponsor as saying that the “Convention would be limited to a small set of issues….”  Unfortunately, such limiting is wishful thinking because a convention once convened, is a law unto itself.  All it takes is a majority proclaimed by the chairman of the Convention, and anything goes.

You are receiving this email through alabamaeagle.org

Unsubscribe Test Email Address from this list | Forward to a friend | Update your profile Like Andy Schlafly on a Compact for a Balanced Budget Article V Convention on Facebook
Our mailing address is:

Eagle Forum of Alabama

4200 Stone River Circle

Birmingham, Alabama 35213

Add us to your address book

Copyright (C) 2016 Eagle Forum of Alabama All rights reserved.

We Will Defend Alabama’s Probate Judges

An Open Letter to Alabama Legislators,

In an effort to help you encourage your local Probate Judges to stand for natural marriage, I am forwarding the excerpted email below from Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel.  He has pledged to defend those who refuse to perform ceremonies that violate Alabama’s Constitution.

Support for those who resist this judicial tyranny comes from the Alabama Baptist Board of Missions http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/print-edition-article-detail.php?id_art=33380&pricat_art=1,Franklin Graham http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/franklin-graham-weighs-in-on-alabama-marriages/, and the 81% of Alabamians who voted for the sanctity of marriage amendment – among many others!

Please read Phyllis Schlafly’s 1/28/2015 column to understand why:

·          “It’s long past time for the U. S. Supreme Court to reaffirm the principle that the federal courts can not interfere in state domestic relations”. http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/marriage-on-the-chopping-block.html

Additionally, I call to your attention the Marriage Statement in the 2009 Manhattan Declaration co-authored by Dean Timothy George (Beeson Divinity School at Samford University), the late Chuck Colson, and McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, Dr. Robert George  http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/#0. It has close to one million signers.  Included is this statement:

             “No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as marriage.  Marriage is an objective reality – a covenantal union of husband and wife – that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good…  If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow.  First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized.  Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral.  Third, the common good of civil society is damaged …”

May God bless you in these critical times as you seek to deter the condoning of actions that God and civilized society have condemned for centuries as unhealthy.

Sincerely,
Eunie Smith, President
Eagle Forum of Alabama
alaeagle@charter.net
(205) 879-7096
_________________________________________________________________________________

In an escalating battle for natural marriage, Alabama has become ground zero.  The state is in judicial chaos after a federal judge ruled that Alabama’s marriage law is unconstitutional. Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore took issue with the ruling and rightly declared that probate judges are not required to preside over same-sex “marriage” ceremonies.  Liberty Counsel will defend the probate judges who follow the direction of Chief Justice Moore. Please see my important update on this pressing matter – Mat.

It is fitting that Alabama’s motto is, “We dare defend our rights,” while the battle to preserve natural marriage is raging in that southern state.  Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade ruled that Alabama’s prohibition on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and then put her decision on hold until yesterday.
Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court of the United States refused Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange’s request to extend the judge’s hold on the order until the High Court rules on the matter this summer. …

Liberty Counsel agrees with Chief Justice Moore. The Alabama probate judges are not bound by an opinion of a single federal judge. This sole federal judge does not have jurisdiction to order all state probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As members of the state judicial branch, probate judges are not bound by the decisions of the lower federal courts, as confirmed by multiple Alabama and U.S. Supreme Court cases.

 

We will defend any probate judge who is challenged on their refusal to perform a same-sex marriage.
In 2006, 81 percent of Alabama voters opposed a same-sex marriage initiative. Nationwide, the expressed legal will of tens of millions of Americans have been trampled under foot by judicial activism on the issue of marriage.

+ + Now is the time for Americans who are concerned about the moral collapse in our nation to rise up and take action by standing for marriage!  This battle is far from over. …

+ + An escalating “marriage” quagmire.

Right now, Liberty Counsel is also involved in numerous other cases to affirm that natural marriage is not subject to redefinition by a court or legislature. We are aggressively defending the rights of citizens to declare that natural marriage is the standard for their state and locality.

We are standing with Christian business owners who decline same-sex “marriage” business, which would force them to participate in something that violates their consciences. We are empowering these business owners to stand against the personal assaults, demonstrations, and demonization by radical homosexual activists.

Last month, the High Court agreed to review a federal appeals court decision that upheld natural marriage laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Again, our legal team will be actively engaged in that hearing.  I firmly believe that this is a crucially important and winnable battle.

God bless you abundantly for standing on behalf of God-ordained, natural marriage.

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

P.S. Marriage laws nationwide are in horrible confusion as is evidenced recently in Florida and now in Alabama.  This disorder and division in lower jurisdictions is what can be expected when judicial activists force their will on society!

+ + Comments? Questions?

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=541331&CID=1310&RID=43215355

Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and the family.  Liberty Counsel . PO Box 540774 . Orlando, FL 32854 . 800-671-1776

Andy Schlafly’s statement against a Convention of the States

I completely oppose an Article V convention.  It is a dangerous threat to our values and our Nation.  Congress or judicial activism would likely require that the voting at such a convention be in proportion to population, and thereby dominated by liberal states.  They would probably put a right to abortion and homosexual marriage into the Constitution, and repeal the Second Amendment.  There is nothing good that can result from an Article V convention, because Congress and the Courts will not feel restrained by a new amendment any more than they comply with existing text.  Even proposing an Article V convention has the harmful effect of devaluing the Constitution we cherish.

The original Constitutional Convention was made possible by rules of secrecy against media interference. That is impossible today and thus the liberal media would obtain the result it wants.  Pinning one’s hopes on an Article V convention today is like a bankrupt man turning to gambling to solve his family’s financial problems.  Hard work, in electing good people who defend our existing Constitution, is what is needed.  The pie-in-the-sky, dangerous proposal of an Article V convention should be rejected.

 

Andrew L. Schlafly, Esq.

Attorney who practices before the U.S. Supreme Court and twelve U.S. Courts of Appeal

General Counsel of the Ass’n of American Physicians & Surgeons (oldest conservative group in the U.S.)

A leading attorney in federal litigation against abortion

For six consecutive years, 2009-2014, have led busloads of teenagers to the March for Life in D.C.

“Let’s Roll” on Constitution Day, September 17, 2013

Join Patriots across the nation to celebrate Constitution Day on September 17, 2013.  Alabama’s event will be held on the Alabama State Capitol steps and grounds from 10AM until 1PM.  Topics to be discussed are the U.S. Constitution, the IRS, Common Core and Impeachment.  Click on the flyer below for more information.

LetsRollProtestFlyer_0001

 

 

 

National Popular Vote Is A Bad Idea

Check out Phyllis’ latest column explaining why national popular vote is a bad idea.

National Popular Vote Is A Bad Idea

by Phyllis Schlafly

Moving quietly under cover of presidential debates and the enormous publicity given to the race for the Republican nomination is a plan to change how U.S. Presidents are elected. It would bypass the procedure spelled out in the U.S. Constitution which has been used successfully for over two centuries.

The Constitution prescribes how we elect our Presidents. It is a mirror image of the Great Compromise designed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which brought together the large and small states by means of a national Congress, with the House based on population and the Senate based on state sovereignty.

Likewise, when the presidential electors meet in gatherings known as the Electoral College, each state’s vote is equal to the sum of its House and Senate representation in Congress. Our Founding Fathers understood that America is a nation of both “we the people” and a federal system of states, so it allows all states, regardless of size, to be players in electing our President.

NPV is an attempt to achieve the longtime liberal goal of getting rid of the Electoral College. Instead of proposing an amendment that would first need to be passed by Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states (38), NPV is a scheme to deviously bypass the grand design of our U.S. Constitution.

NPV lobbyists are trying to get state legislatures to enact identical bills requiring their own state’s presidential electors to ignore the winner of their own state’s presidential election, and instead cast all their state’s votes for the candidate whom the politicians estimate received the most popular votes nationwide. That candidate would not need a majority or any certain threshold–just more votes than any other candidate (i.e.-a plurality)

The NPV campaign lets people believe that NPV will elect Presidents who win the majority of popular votes, but that is false. Because of third parties, we’ve had many elections (including three of the last five) when no presidential candidate received a popular-vote majority. Abraham Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote and only our Electoral College system elected him President.

If the NPV lobbyists can get enough states whose votes in the Electoral College total at least 270, they will be able to steal votes away from some candidates, transfer those votes to another candidate, and thereby construct a fake majority in the Electoral College. Eight states and the District of Columbia (with 132 electoral votes; half of the 270 needed) have already joined this NPV “compact” to “activate” NPV: Vermont 3, Maryland 10, Washington 12, Illinois 20, New Jersey 14, District of Columbia 3, Massachusetts 11, California 55, and Hawaii 4.

The NPV slogan “Every Vote Equal” is dishonest because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing. For example, Texas or Louisiana could be forced to cast its votes for a candidate who won more votes in other states, such as New York.

If NPV had been in effect in the year 2000, Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush because Gore received more votes than Bush. It’s a mystery how any Republican could support NPV, and it’s no surprise that the Republican National Committee voted unanimously to oppose NPV because members saw it as unconstitutional and unworkable.

Remember our national trauma as we suffered through recounts in Florida where the margin between Bush and Gore was only about 500 votes? If the election is based on the national popular vote and it’s close, NPV would induce recounts in many or most of the 50 states.

Mexico uses a national popular vote system, and it’s a good illustration of why we don’t want it here. In Mexico’s last presidential election, the candidate with the “most votes” received 35.89 percent while his closest rival got 35.31 percent, a margin of just one-half of one percent. In the months that followed, Mexico was on the verge of civil war as the runner-up held mass rallies attracting millions of his angry supporters.

People who pretend that the Electoral College system is undemocratic are not only ignorant of the history and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, but they probably don’t even understand baseball. Basing the election on a plurality of the popular vote while ignoring the states would be like the New York Yankees claiming they won the 1960 World Series because they outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27 and in hits 91-60. Yet, the Pirates fairly won that World Series, 4 games to 3, and no one challenges their victory.

New Obama EPA Regulations Will Create 230,000 Jobs And Cost $21 Billion

President Obama has recently submitted a jobs plan to Congress.  Unfortunately for him, the reception has been less than stellar even among members of his own party.  In typical Obama style, he is now going around Congress to start creating those jobs and is spending $21 billion to do so.

This is not a new tactic for President Obama as he has often used regulatory agencies to accomplish what he cannot get through legislatively.  For instance, Congress rejected Cap and Trade yet the EPA has implemented most of the cap and trade policies on its own.  Congress wouldn’t pass an immigration reform bill, so President Obama used an executive order to grant what amounts to amnesty.  Under this administration, the FCC has tried to put in place a new regulatory structure for the internet called Net Neutrality–again, something Congress wouldn’t pass.

The President is becoming increasingly bold about these kinds of maneuvers.  Recently while announcing exemptions from the No Child Left Behind Law, President Obama said the following:

I’ve urged Congress for a while now, let’s get a bipartisan effort, let’s fix this,” Obama said. “Congress hasn’t been able to do it. So I will. Our kids only get one shot at a decent education. They cannot afford to wait any longer. So, given that Congress cannot act, I am acting…

This is not the mindset of someone who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers.

And that doesn’t even begin to address problems with the actual policy.  The regulatory burdens in this country have become so heavy and difficult, many businesses are looking for ways to move over seas to places that have a much more business-friendly environment.  Recently Coke announced it was ramping up its investments in China.  The Coke CEO, Muhtar Kent, made the following statements about his reasons for shifting more investment to China:

“Coca-Cola now sees the US becoming a less friendly business environment than China, … citing political gridlock and an antiquated tax structure. … Muhtar Kent, Coke’s chief executive, said ‘in many respects’ it was easier doing business in China, which he likened to a well-managed company. ‘You have a one-stop shop in terms of the Chinese foreign investment agency and local governments are fighting for investment with each other … They’re learning very fast, these countries … In the west, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment’. …”

“Kent argued that US states did not compete enough with each other to attract businesses while Chinese provinces were clamouring to draw investment from international companies.

There are a growing number of business owners and investors who have publicly stated their unwillingness to invest or expand due to the uncertainty in the regulatory field and with the nation’s economy.  Back in February, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee heard directly from small business owners about the devastating impact the tsunami of Obama Administration regulations is having on their ability to grow and create jobs.

“The cost of regulation incurred by all businesses is eventually passed on to the consumer and our workforce.  Regulatory costs require business owners like me to devote more time and resources to government compliance, which means less capital devoted to investment and job creation.

“If regulatory burden continues to grow we, along with all other private sector companies, will no longer be able to compete in the world market.  Jobs will not be created and new businesses will not be formed.  You will suffocate the system that has produced everything we enjoy today.  It is that simple.”

It’s time for Congress to stand up to the President and take back its Constitutional authority.  Rep. Geoff Davis and Sen. Rand Paul are proposing legislation that will do exactly that.  Called the REINS Act, H.R. 10 will require major regulations (defined as regulations that have more than a $100 million impact on the economy among other things) to be voted on by Congress before they have the force and effect of law.

Alabama Representatives Spencer Bachus, Jo Bonner, Mo Brooks and Martha Roby have already signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation, along with Senator Jeff Sessions in the Senate.  We ask you to encourage Representatives Robert Aderholt, Mike Rogers and Terri Sewell to sign on as well, along with Senator Richard Shelby.  Congressional Switchboard 202-224-3121