Forum Post: 2004 lawsuit says that congress has the right to veto the text of the Constitution
Posted 13 years ago on Dec. 1, 2011, 5:19 a.m. EST by warriorjoe7
(232)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Listen up. This is a legit way to occupy congress itself, and it was granted by our forefathers in Article V of the constitution. The problem is that the Supreme Court says that Congress has the right to veto individual text of the constitution... which includes vetoing text of Article V, which states that Congress MUST hold a constitutional convention (the way to make constitutional amendments) when enough states apply for it. Enough states HAVE applied (75%) for it yet congress thinks they can ignore what they ARE REQUIRED to do by article V of the constitution. What we really have is a runaway congress.
Here is the background
http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
Here is the result
Article 5 is our first and last constitutional right. If we don't use it now, we will not have any rights.
A more informed post from "ChristopherABrownART5"
"...What is happening is that citizens are trying to defend the constitution, . . . but they don't know it. If they make a demand for an article 5 convention then law enforcement and municipal leaders will have to back off.
Protestors are actually trying to gain acountability for very serious crimes and treason, but they don't know that. They only know the impacts of the crimes and their demands relate to that. Congress has bee violating the constitution for 100 years by failing to convene delegates.
Bill Walker sued all members of congress and learned quite a bit. Video and general resources on article 5.
http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
Lessig power point on article V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk
Lots of facts here about Article V.
http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
Article V conference, Lawrence Lessig at harvard 9/25/11-other attendee video comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-7ikbvu0Y8
We need to Occupy Congress and put them on notice with a petition of greivance. That starts the clock ticking on the 45 day contractual period of notice for them to begin to call state delegates for a convention to propose amendments.
This is a letter that actually cites the violations of law that congress is conducting at this moment having neglected, non feased and mal feased for so long we are seriously needing to engage remedy. This could be legitimately be used to Occupy Congress in constructive notice.
Then go to the state
http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?3-Letter-to-your-Representatives
Now it comes to finding who understands that protests need to be organized upon states legislatures. They need to understand some legal aspects too. Here is a letter template, resolution form that can be sent to state legislatures asking them to work for an article V convention.
Article 5 is our first and last constitutional right. If we don't use it now, we will not have any rights.
Yeah - I'm on dial-up.
I don't understand this particular issue.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution
The Congress,
whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or,
on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which,
in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States
or
by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; . .. .
this has been clearly met "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,"
however so far the congress has avoided putting it forth for ratification...
when did 2/3 of the states - or 34 of them - apply for a Constitutional Convention?
What was the amendment they proposed?
And IF Congress failed to act, why did the matter not revert back to the states, where it would seem the matter would become amended to the Constitution upon ratification by 38 of them?
I don't have dates but there is supposedly over 200 applications from different states over different issues since the last article V convention.
http://article5.org/Amendment%20Convention%20Subject%20Matter%20Information%20Page.htm
actually herea are some years from the a link on the same page. I don't know exactly how you would go about it but perhaps you can do a little fact check and see if a few of them on the list check out.
http://article5.org/TABLE%20%20SUMMARIZING%20STATE%20APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20A%20CONVENTION%20TO%20PROPOSE%20AMENDMENTS.pdf
In answer to the question by the author below regarding whether the 2004 lawsuit actually said Congress can veto. The answer is found in the first lawsuit, Walker v United States, which up to now has been ignored. The 2004 lawsuit, Walker v Members of Congress, was simply a repeat by the district court judge who quoted the judge in 2000. That judge did two things which should answer the question.
First, in his court order, the judge quoted a statement made by me in the record. In that record I cited four Supreme Court rulings which expressly stated Congress must call. The judge used the quote but eliminated with "...." those citations. Thus, he officially voided them. Second, he assigned the political question doctrine to the convention call stating that it was the "determination" of Congress regarding a convention call. The word determination obviously means "decide". In short, he assigned a choice where none ever existed or was intended. As part of that "determination" therefore, under his ruling, Congress can determine not to call. Thus, by his actions, the judge established a veto. I hope this answers the question.
thanks for the explanation! Is there anything we can do about this?
I know our one success was getting the governemnet to adopt a stance, and that stance is against being limited at all by the bounds of the constitution, but what is the next step? The politicians and that jusge should be throne in jail and lose their position but is that practically enforceable? How do we get to that point? and if we don't what do we do otherwise?
This is a good idea.
it is also a good idea to add to this list the following URL http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
Congress shall make no law which ifringes on free speech. "Laws" requiring permits infer the right to say no. These laws are passed with more than 1 person voting. 2 people constitute a Conspiracy. Thus failure to issue or extend a permit interferes with free speech.
All federal contracts require that US laws be upheld. This is a wide open place to protest violations and ask Congress to shut off money to pay these contracts when the institutions, schools, etc do not obey the law.
i.e. University of California, University of Virginia, any city or State that gets federal funds.
Anyone in the 99% still think holding a National General Assembly as per the 99% Declaration is a bad idea? Anyone?
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
hey do you got any good links about wat a National General Assembly is all about? An article V Constitutional Convention is what it looks like we need however I want to know about this too.
The basic structure of it is outlined in the Declaration. Basically it's like any GA except that the delegates are elected. What I call the District General Assemblies (DGA's) elect two delegates and prepare their own List of Grievances to take to Philadelphia, where the delegates will finalize a List. Like large-scale meetings, much of the work is done ahead of time. The delegates would have to return to their districts if more consultation is required and likely to "ratify" the final list but I'm not exactly sure about that yet.
As for the ART V , the first two items currently in the suggested List both speak of amending the constitution although it doesn't yet specify that it would be an ART V convention. Again, I'm not the best person to ask, you can email the working group
My reasoning for supporting the Declaration and the NGA concept goes like this: The occupations gave birth to the movement and was tremendously successful. The NYCGA led the way and like it or not, they are the de-facto leaders. (Here's the test: If Occupy DenverGA announced that there was going to be an NGA in July in Philly, who would notice? If the NYCGA made the same announcement every media outlet in the world would be on the story.) So the rebel leaders do the democratic thing and call an election so there is a process to divest themselves of their untenable dictatorship. They would and should welcome this relief.
The NGA effectively puts the Republican and Democratic parties between a rock and a hard place. Delivering the List of Grievances as the two campaigns are in full swing means candidates are going to have to start answering hard questions. Thus, in order to attract the 99r votes, they are going to have to start competing with each other. OWS will have a profound impact on the 2012 election, and the NGA establishes the framework to keep that pressure on. If promises are broken, if The List is ignored, the NGA reconvenes and moves OWS/99% to the next level, the independent third party.
And if an ART V Convention is required, 100% of Americans will know about it through the voice of the NGA.
Would someone care to explain to me why this is a bad idea?
http://www.nycga.net
here to help...!!!! hehehe
I may have mispoken about a minor fact. I am not sure if the 2004 lawsuit ITSELF says that congress may veto text of the constitution at it's discretion, however taken from article5.org
"Finally, Walker v. Members of Congress was significant as it was the first lawsuit in history directly dealing with a convention call of Article V to be presented to the Supreme Court. In October, 2006 the court denied a writ of certiorari and thus refused to consider the case. However, the United States, under Supreme Court Rules, had already conceded as fact and law that it held that Congress could veto the text of the Constitution."