.gif){kind=logo}
Walker v. Members of Congress
hey there, REB 84 invited me over, and i'm here to answer any questions and/or eleborate why the federal suit Walker is important to us now.
if you have the time, check the link, watch the short documentary on Walker, and/or read the writ of certiorari in the links below. or just start firing off some questions.
writ: Walker v. Members of Congress
documentary: You Tube - Walker
QuestionItNow Blogs
if you have the time, check the link, watch the short documentary on Walker, and/or read the writ of certiorari in the links below. or just start firing off some questions.
writ: Walker v. Members of Congress
documentary: You Tube - Walker
QuestionItNow Blogs
posted by john de herrera | 8/21/2006 12:44:00 AM
15 Comments:
John,
I watched the video and am somewhat confused. It felt like I was joining a conversation in the middle and I have a few questions.
Who is Walke? When did he first decide to file suit against the US Congress? Is there any legal precedent?
Which States have called for Constitutional Convention? What reasons did they cite in proposing such a convention?
reb. yes the doc was made with the funds available, trying to place the key ideas. wish i could've done more, but we'll hope it at least sparks interest.
some guys are into cars, some guys are into the civil war, etc. bill walker is a guy who is into the constitution. if you go here: http://www.article5.org you'll find the complete history of his suits and other information about them.
he filed the first suit knowing it would be thrown out and why. he then came back at the courts with Walker v. Members of Congress. and yes there is legal precedent. there are 208 supreme court rulings backing his position.
all fifty states have applied for a convention. some of them appyling multiple times. many of the ideas on the table today were the reason for submitting applications: federal tax, protection of marriage, apportionment, etc.
any other questions, i'm around.
John,
I am posting a link to the website to make it easier for anyone following this thread to read more: Article5.org
I read the judge's ruling letter from 3/21/01. If I understand this correctly, the suit was denied because it is considered "political" and must be brought before congress. Is this correct?
reb84,
yes, the lower courts ruled that the convention call falls under the "political question doctrine." in other words that the convention call is up to congress. this is absolutely contrary to the direct language of the constitution ("shall call"), and federalist 85 (the call is "peremptory"), and 208 supreme court rulings since.
the convention call was based on a simple numeric count for a reason--to prevent the politicization of the clause. in short the framers of the constitution dealt with the political question doctrine directly--congress "shall call" a convention....
John,
Have you looked at some of the Wikipedia source materials on Article V? I found the following from Convention to propose amendments to U.S. Constitution to be quite illuminating.
"All of the twenty-seven amendments thus far incorporated into the Constitution were proposed by Congress—never have the legislatures of enough states applied to Congress to call a national convention to propose an amendment on the same subject. While there have been applications addressed to Congress from the nation's beginning to the 1990s—and from legislators in all but one of the 50 states—Congress has never responded by calling a convention because those applications requested amendments on different subjects. This Congressional inaction has contributed to impression that the applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures must petition for the same amendment(s) although the federal courts have never ruled on this "precedent" which has been quietly established through Congressional unresponsiveness."
I found this linked from Article Five of the United States Constitution.
Both links are from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia.
Have you considered adding information about Walker V. Congress the into Wikipedia?
reb84, bill walker did contribute to wikipedia. his full contribution was was edited with no explanation.
reb84, here is a response from bill walker about the wikipedia site:
Dear Sir,
I apologize for my delay in responding to your question. You asked the following:
"All of the twenty-seven amendments thus far incorporated into the
Constitution were proposed by Congress—never have the legislatures of enough
states applied to Congress to call a national convention to propose an
amendment on the same subject. While there have been applications addressed
to Congress from the nation's beginning to the 1990s—and from legislators in
all but one of the 50 states—Congress has never responded by calling a
convention because those applications requested amendments on different
subjects. This Congressional inaction has contributed to impression that the
applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures must petition for the
same amendment(s) although the federal courts have never ruled on this
"precedent" which has been quietly established through Congressional
unresponsiveness."
In sum, almost everything in this article is either incorrect or an outright lie. Up until just a few days ago my assertions could be construed as just my opinion. Not any more. On August 29, 2006 the Solicitor General of the United States filed a waiver of the right to response to my writ of certiorari. Now according to the Supreme Court Rules (15.2) this means the government conceded that the law and the facts--all the facts--stated in my writ were correct. I've included a copy of the waiver which can be viewed on my web site at www.article5.org. I've included a copy of the Supreme Court Rule 15.2 in which it makes perfectly clear what such a waiver means regardless of whether or not the Court accepts my cert. Finally I've included pages of the writ itself the facts of which have now been authenticated by the Government of the United States by the office of the Solicitor General of the United States Paul D. Clement, counsel of record.
I will sum up what is incorrect about this above article. Let the facts I've reported to you be refuted if they can be. So far not even the federal government can do it. I might not be granted cert by the Supreme Court but there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that what I been saying is undisputed fact.
First of all, the Constitution does not require that the applications from the state legislatures must contain a subject or that the same subject must be applied for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. If you're interested as to why consider what would happen if instead of two-thirds, three-fourths of the legislatures so applied, would you then not have ratification of an amendment that had yet to have been written? Further, if it is same subject, who would then write the amendment? This is why the Constitution only asks for a two-thirds applications, i.e., a numeric count of states in order to trigger a convention.
Now, while subject is not required for the applications many do have subjects. You can examine all of this material in detail at my web page. Simply go to the bottom of the first page that shows in your browser and click. To return to the article, as you can see by the facts, now conceded by the government, at least three individual subjects have had the necessary count of applications by themselves to have caused a convention. These are repeal of federal income tax, apportionment and direct election of senators. The last is because at the time of the applications in the early 1900's there were only 46 states in the union and thus 31 states applying exceeds the two-thirds requirement. (By the way the fact that Congress passed an amendment proposal of that subject did not relieve it of its constitutional obligation to call a convention anyway. There is nothing to say that a convention then or now might not suggest an entirely different amendment that currently exists.)
The article says all but one state have applied. That is incorrect. All 50 have applied. If you wish to know more, again I suggest the weblink referred to earlier.
As to establishing a "precedent" the only thing that has been established is that Congress appears to believe it may veto the direct language of the Constitution despite Supreme Court rulings and several federal criminal laws all of which were again conceded by the Solicitor General meaning that he did not dispute that the laws cited in my writ did indeed effect Congress or could be applied to them. As to same subject, I simply point out the first 10 amendments. By my count there are over 60 various subjects contained in those amendments and I may actually be short in my count. For example, free of religion, free speech and the right to petition are not the same subjects. Certainly rights and trail and eminent domain are not the same subject yet they are all squeezed into the same sentence in some cases. Thus not even Congress stays to a single subject in an amendment. You can also see this again in the 14th Amendment which covers equal protection as well as national debt.
If same subject were correct Congress should have called and they have not. All same subject is a lie made up by Congress to avoid calling a convention.
As to Wikipedia, several months ago I discovered the site you have found. I went in and corrected the article using the same material I have given you and which now has been authenticated by the concession of the government. Within 24 hours my article had been pulled by those running the article and the original article returned in its place. I pointed this error out to those in charge and gave them sources to be checked if they desired. As you can see, they never did apparently content to post false lies or outright distortions. I have not and will not waste my time further with them. Besides, I've been proved right and that's more important that wasting time correcting an article in a web posting.
Bill Walker
Very interesting new development Bill. It appears you are making significant progress.
John,
Feel free to post an update on this blog.
BTW - I took another look at the Wikipedia entry Convention to propose amendments to U.S. Constitution. I found an interesting note at the top of this entry. "This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations."
This is consitent with Bill's assertion.
The updated documents can be found via the following link Article V - Supreme Court Page
The only comment I wish to post at this time is I find it so interesting that so few people are interested in this subject. Within less than a month the Supreme Court will reach a decision as whether or not the actual text of the Constitution must be obeyed by the government that text created. This principle was the entire reason the Constitution was created in the first place. People speak of "guarantees" of First or Second or Fifth Amendment rights. If the government doesn't have to obey the text of those guarantees, there is no guarantee anymore than if you sign a contract and then don't obey its provisions, there is no contract.
If the government wins, then it will be perfectly legal for them to strip away any "right" they choose. Think about it for a moment: all this protest about CIA spying, security and so forth and if a suit no one appears to care about is lost, all the government has to do from that moment on is walk into any public forum they choose and say "Walker v Members of Congress" and they can justify any act they want. The scary thing is, they will be right.
sorry bill, i disagree with you. 1) it is not that nobody cares, it's that they are not being informed. if ms. couric or mr. williams et. al. ran news reports about your suit, the sleeping giant would awake.
2) just because corruption has become institutionalized, and the individuals who currently people our government are corrupt and/or ignorant does not mean they are right.
3) the 567 state applications are a part of the congressional record. this means that as soon as a tipping point majority of americans decide they want the government to obey the constitution and call a convention, the rest will likely follow. or, as soon as it is made known how and why the government must call a convention, then the constitution will be revived and reattached to the electorate.
your suit, while brilliant, is not the last word on the matter.
Gentlemen,
One way to get attention is to work the web and locate other bloggers who share a passion for the United States Constitution. I just found a new blog Political Science and asked them to visit and share their thoughts. I found this site via a Google search "article five of the united states constitution"
I am sure there are many more out there.
BTW - John, feel free to post an update on Walker v. Members of Congress later in the week.
Interesting discussion. Some issues about the state petitions that need discussion: How many of them are contingent petitions? How many are conditional? Must a petition be absolute and/or unconditional in order to be counted?
It seems you have answered many of these questions. I look forward to hearing more.
Thank you for joining the conversation.
What is the current status on Walker v. Members of Congress? Are our elected and appointed officials above the law or are they subject to it? I have been researching past history on violations of the oath of office and have come across this case, but can find very little on it, or it's outcome. What is the scoop? Can we hold elected or appointed officials to thier oath of office legally? Yes or no?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home