This article concerns the filing of a formal criminal complaint against members of Congress for failure to call an Article V Convention by Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
July 19, 2011.
I have learned this day that a citizen of the United States today filed a formal, official criminal complaint with the FBI against members of Congress for criminal violation of oath of office regarding failure to call an Article V Convention. This citizen is not myself but someone who has, for several years, studied the material at FOAVC, particularly the federal lawsuits previously filed by me in 2000 and again in 2006. Based on that information, coupled with his own extensive research, he has taken the next faithful step of demanding the Constitution be obeyed and a convention call as required by that sacred document.
While I am not at liberty at this time to give details regarding the name and other identifying information of this citizen, it is clear this is the endgame for the question regarding an Article V Convention. Simply put, either the United States government will determine members of Congress are bound by their oath of office to obey the provisions of the United States Constitution, which in this case involves calling an Article V Convention when the states apply, or it will determine they are not bound to obey provisions of the Constitution. If they are so bound, the government will bring criminal charges against members of Congress who have violated their oaths of office for failure to call a convention. If they are not so bound, the government will decline action against them.
For over 30 years the John Birch Society and their allies have preached fear and lies about an Article V Convention. The clear intent and thrust of this effort was to ensure that despite state actions of overwhelming description to the contrary, this nation would never obey its own Constitution and cause Congress to call a convention. Despite warnings that such unsupported propaganda would ultimately undermine the entire Constitution, the opposition has continued unabated.
Now the consequences of such action will unfold. With a formal criminal complaint before it, the federal government has no choice in the matter. It must decide officially, formally and irrevocably whether or not the Constitution must be obeyed by the government. For as long as this nation has existed, scholars, historians, political figures and even the JBS themselves has stated that if the states apply Congress must call the convention. This statement is based on the assumption and presumption that the Constitution must be obeyed and lies at the core of our fundamental belief as citizens as to the authority of the United States Constitution—that first and foremost it must be obeyed.
Now, this belief, this assumption, this presumption is put to the test. Does Congress, in fact, have to obey the Constitution? The JBS has urged the government not obey the Constitution. The Founders, the courts, the states and public record disagree. Now the government will decide which position is the correct one.
Of course some citizens will foolishly reply the government disobeys the Constitution all the time, so what is one more violation? These citizens fail to comprehend the true consequences of actual documented violation of the Constitution by the government. Just because these citizens politically assert the Constitution has been violated by government action does not make it so. It is one thing to state the government has violated the Constitution as a political argument. It is another to constitutionally prove this with documented evidence. A careful study of such political allegations usually proves them false as language in the Constitution can be found to support such government actions. If so, then the government cannot be said to be in violation of the Constitution.
However, in the case of an Article V Convention call, it has been formally and officially proved with irrefutable documentary evidence in a court of law and officially admitted by the government that the government has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the Constitution. For the record, the government has formally admitted that an Article V Convention call is peremptory, that a convention call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions, that sufficient applications exist to cause a convention call and that failure to call an Article V Convention is a criminal violation of oath of office. In sum, it is one thing to politically assert constitutional violation, it is quite another to constitutionally prove it. In the case of an Article V Convention call, the matter has been constitutionally proved and more importantly, admitted to by the government in formal court proceedings.
The consequences of this decision are historic. Either Congress will be compelled to call a convention as this will be the natural consequence of the government determining the Constitution must be obeyed, or the government will formally and officially determine it is no longer bound to obey the Constitution and its provisions. Thus, it will become a matter of government policy. The effect of the former will mean a new form of our government will exist in this country, one in which by its very existence, means a limitation upon the federal government and the opportunity for the people to rectify those national issues which the national government has been unwilling or unable to address. It is true this new form has existed all along within our Constitution but now, for the first time in United States history, the people will have a new governing tool, one which until this event, they were denied. The effect of the latter will be to eliminate the Constitution as an effective ruling document of this nation. Once the government formally determines it is not bound to obey the Constitution, that the oaths of office taken by government officials as to loyalty and obedience to the Constitution are meaningless and without substance, the Constitution will become defacto void.
To those who have urged the overthrow of the Constitution as an effective, viable legal document for this nation by urging the Constitution not be obeyed by the government, I simply say, be careful what you wish for—you may get it.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Bill Walker only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Bill Walker is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 19, 2011 12:09:54 PM
This again?
...the federal government has no choice in the matter.
As inclined as I am to see a Constitutional Convention as a necessary thing currently, the means being used are still ludicrous. Criminal complaint? There is no standing, as I'm sure you've been told, for a citizen to make the complaint. The courts can simply dismiss the complaint.
There's quite a number of things that Congress is disinclined to amend the Constitution for, but there is no subject I know of upon which the requisite number of states have applied that it becomes necessary.
...unless you know of one. Balanced budget amendment? Equal rights amendment? Marriage amendment? Flag-burning amendment? Abortion amendment? What's the cause that would compel one?
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: July 19, 2011 12:48:13 PM
First of all, as expected, those who dismiss this are ignorant. Standing only applies to civil suits. There is no standing in a criminal complaint and if the case is dismissed by a court then the court will be ruling the oath of office does not have to be obeyed by Congress despite federal laws clearly stating the contrary exactly as stated in the article. In short, your conclusion only affirms what is stated in the article. You simply fail to realize that fact.
You obviously cannot read. As stated in the article, the United States government has already stated a convention call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions including that the applications all must be for a specific amendment proposal. As the states do not have the right to propose amendments, this should be obvious. The states only have the right to apply for a convention call.
As to your question. The answer is balanced budget amendment (36 states), apportionment (37 states) and repeal of federal income tax (39 states). So, even if the condition of application was a specific amendment proposal, the states have satisfied this bogus standard.
If you have evidence to prove that the basis of the count is same subject of amendment please cite it.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: July 19, 2011 01:37:03 PM
Bill,
When you are legally able to do so, I would very much like to read the complaint and the government's response. It's important for your supporters to have all the information available to us.
Good luck, but I'm afraid I already know what the government's response will be. If this fails, is there any other legal recourse remaining or has the gauntlet been thrown?
Posted By: John De Herrera
Date: July 19, 2011 02:19:12 PM
Bill, I agree with Bill Gee, knowing who made the complaint and how it reads is important as it stokes the fires of hope. Please do ask this unknown person to step forth for us to applaud their efforts.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 19, 2011 02:20:44 PM
as expected, those who dismiss this are ignorant.
Please come down off your cross. If you have a point to make, then try to make it without coming across as a martyr.
Standing only applies to civil suits.
That would be correct, except that it's not.
With very few exceptions, a criminal complain must be filed by the one against whom the criminal law is understood to have been violated. I cannot file burglary charges when my neighbor is burglarized.
Apart from that, there is the matter of whether or not Congress failing to act is a crime as defined by statute. I'm thoroughly unconvinced that it is. And you've stated nothing that would convince me of anything other than you being a bossy-britches who doesn't like being challenged.
I would believe that a state may be able to press this issue, but I doubt you are the Attorney General of a state and hencedon't, um, like, have standing.
In short, your conclusion only affirms what is stated in the article.
Really? Without mincing and mewling, please tell me what I "concluded" in my first response. A direct, plain answer would be appreciated. Because I don't think I "concluded" much except that:
a] I'd like to see this go through, but
2] I don't think this is the way to get it.
You obviously cannot read.
I apparently can read better than you can write.
a convention call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions including that the applications all must be for a specific amendment proposal.
Things I've read disagree with that.
Now, I'm not going to declare that I agree with their position, but I will caution you that it would seem that the government does - and that is what matters.
But I find it odd that that on the one hand you tell me that "states are not allowed to propose amendments" and in the very next paragraph you inform me how many states proposed specific amendments:
balanced budget amendment (36 states)
apportionment (37 states)
repeal of federal income tax (39 states)
They either can, or they can't. Which is it? Can't be both.
Next question: do these counts include those states which have withdrawn their applications? Or not?
The Constitution is silent on this, and the concept of never being allowed to change one's mind is awfully constrictive.
It would seem to me that the only entity whose count of states calling for convention on specific issues or in general matters a damn would be those of the federal courts. What do the courts say is the number of states in the dogpile?
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: July 19, 2011 02:43:55 PM
I want to emphasize this point. This is not my criminal complaint. Therefore you will get the information when I get it. As to not releasing the person's name at this point. He has made his own arrangements as to national coverage of this matter and already within his congressional district an opponent to the current incumbent member of Congress has been blasted regarding this. In short, one way or another within a period of no more than a day or two, the information will be forthcoming. However I feel it is only appropriate that the individual involved in all this be the one that sets the pace as to release of information.
In answer to the gauntlet question. Nope. This is it. Either the Constitution is obeyed or it is not. At least one thing will come out of this for sure. If the government declines to prosecute the JBS will then have actual factual material on which to base their claims and will be able forever more to state, "the government has the right to veto the Constitution just like they asserted in this criminal case!"
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: July 19, 2011 11:04:28 PM
To Mr. Rwilymz. whoever you are.
First of all you should know I have very personal distaste for people who hide behind pseudonyms and while I have to admit I missed your "support" of a convention I find your comment that pursuing redress by using the law and stating such action to be "ludicrous" contradictory at best. For the record, as I stated before, the government has already admitted that not to call a convention is a criminal violation of oath of office. Therefore, to file a criminal complaint would seem logical, not ludicrous given that there are no civil laws regarding support of the Constitution and obedience to it in federal law. Thus, the only legal remedy is a criminal complaint. If you have some other way, let's hear it.
And let's get this idea of standing settled once and for all. To use your example, if you see your neighbor being burglarized, and you call the police, you are filing a criminal complaint. The police will not say to you, Mr. Rwilymz, we will not investigate this report of yours because you lack standing and cannot file a report of a crime it is your neighbor who is burglarized. Instead they will launch an investigation based on that report and if the police discover sufficient evidence of a burglary and who did that crime, pass the information to a district attorney or other charged official who in turn files the complaint. That is what the citizen did today. He filed a complaint that federal law demands be investigated. It will be the government who will file the legal papers, not he. Everybody knows how the system works.
As to Congress failing to act to call a convention, I'm sorry but it is a violation. It falls under the "mental reservations" clause of the oath of office, not to mention all the members joined a federal lawsuit, thus advocating their public opposition to obeying the Constitution. That's all the law requires to prove violation of oath of office. Go to the FOAVC website, FAQ 9.1 and read the law. It's all there. Once it is proved the two-thirds quota has been satisfied, any action other than a call by Congress falls under the "mental reservation" clause as a violation of oath of office.
As to a state filing a criminal complaint, it could only do so if state laws were violated and in this case no state laws are involved.
As to your conclusions, as I said I didn't read in them that you supported a convention but since you have clarified that, I extend an apology. However what would suggest be the process for advancing the issue other than using the law?
What things have you read as a the terms and conditions of a convention call. Certainly not the only discussion in Congress in 1790 where it was determined that Congress must call and that Congress has not right of debate, vote or even committee regarding a convention call as there was nothing to debate or vote on. Certainly not the material of the Walker lawsuits in which the government officially admitted for the public record the terms expressed and certainly not the words of the Founders which expressly stated what I have stated in that the original motion creating the convention expressly dealt with calling a convention not proposing amendments and that further the motion was expressly done to remove the power of proposal from the states that existed in early versions of the Constitution. Moreover certainly not Supreme Court rulings that expressly state there is no rules of construction, interpolation or addition as to Article V meaning that when it states "... on the application of two-thirds of the states legislatures (Congress) shall call a convention for proposing amendments..." it means by clear and obvious language that the purpose of the application is to cause Congress to call a convention, not propose an amendment. And certainly not three other Supreme Court rulings in which the court clearly stated a convention call was a numeric ratio and nothing else. Certainly not any of these sources. So what is your source of information?
As to your attempt to throw back at me amendment subject remember you stated in your original comment, "there is no subject I know of upon which the requisite number of states have applied that it becomes necessary." How else would you expect to answer your question but to prove to you that the requisite number of states had applied for subjects in sufficient number such that even if this bogus theory were correct Congress is still obligated to call. This should not surprise you given 49 states have submitted over 700 applications for a convention call.
As to the counts, as you refer to them. Rescission of applications are completely invalid. There isn't even a dictionary definition that describes the actions of the states, let alone a single court ruling anywhere that recognizes the "right" of constitutional rescission. As the Supreme Court has stated, the states operate under the authority of the federal constitution when involved in Article V, not state constitutions. And the federal constitution does not have any provision whatsoever recognizing rescissions. Hence, all applications are current and valid while you may consider the matter to be constrictive, it is actually common sense. The Founders had just gone through a form of government where one state basically controlled the nation by using its power of rescission by voting no on all matters the other states wished to advance. Thus it rescinded all other state actions by every other state in the confederation. It is hardly surprising then that they made sure no such power existed for any state in the new Constitution.
As to the courts, they have stated it is not their place to count applications and that any ruling they make would be an advisory opinion which Congress is free to ignore. However, the court did not absolve Congress of criminal responsibility for failure to obey the Constitution. Thus, the courts have ruled Congress can do as it pleases but must face the consequences for doing so.
Of course I could be completely wrong on this issue. In which, I'm sure with great joy people will shout to the rooftops, "See, I told you! The government can legally veto the Constitution! They don't have to obey it! Hip, hip, hooray!" For that is the consequence if I am incorrect. The government will officially and formally be able to veto the Constitution as it pleases where I hold it must obey the Constitution as written. The Constitution is clear. The states have applied. A convention must be called. Congress has no discretion on this point. If I am proved wrong as to this point and Congress does have the right to veto the Constitution, Mr. Rwilymz you will have my most sincere apology.
By the way one final suggestion. Why don't you contact your member of Congress and ask for his or her view on this matter? I'm sure they will give you the same treatment and straightforward answer that many others have gotten. Let me know how that goes.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 20, 2011 07:58:57 AM
First of all you should know I have very personal distaste for people who hide behind pseudonyms
My name is hardly a huge secret.
But just for you, I can be called "My Liege". That may seem somewhat arrogant of me to demand, but then it would simply be a professional courtesy from one arrogant little **** to another.
let's get this idea of standing settled once and for all.
No, let's not. You're wrong and you know it; you are equivocating terms that even a first year law student would thwack you upon the mazzard for, repeatedly, and it's an attempt for you to wrap a discussion around a convenient axle so that you can dissemble, dissemble, dissemble. I won't play it.
As to Congress failing to act to call a convention, I'm sorry but it is a violation
I would agree with you ... if it weren't for various other things I've picked up.
See, son, when I run across a topic that I'm not altogether familiar with, one of the first things I do is avoid researching through the issue-oriented advocates. On this topic, that would be you. I'm not going to take your word for it: period. I am skeptical. And for the record, skeptical does not mean "you're wrong"; it means "support your position with more than fart gas and sincere desire."
I will conduct an expansive research, even if not a terribly deep one [for this is not my issue and I do not wish to devote more time than I am comfortable devoting to it]. What are the competing and contrary positions on this? Single-source research breeds hidebound - and therefore closed-minded - twerps. I prefer objectivity.
This would seem to be "your issue"; you are not objective. Your rather irrational defense of criminal charges is a good case in point. You can claim that Art V is crystal clear - and you undoubtedly believe that. I'm kinda the same way with the 4thAM, so I know exactly where you're coming from. But see, bucko, you are not the final arbiter on this topic, just like I'm not on the 4thAM. What we say about it may be perfectly sensible to us, but not to those who, for better or worse, run the show. And all their legions of sycophantic stand-ins ready to bear the torch of political inertia.
For example, you claim "Rescission of applications are completely invalid". In the legal world, that is a minority view. It's you and about 6 other people in the country, I believe, who think so.
...and for your tight-assed, constipated, humorless edification, that was hyperbole. You are not obliged to allow your head to explode over it, though it would be amusing. But the point stands - unlike many of yours - that this fundamental disconnect over what Art V allows and doesn't in its "crystal clarity" is what you are up against. There is no one in the country with the authority you need brought to bear who believes that "rescission of applications are completely invalid".
They don't exist. States are allowed to change their minds, and what may be worse: the feds may [I say "may" only to soften the blow; I already know they have] interpolated rescission on behalf of states.
The courts are going to toe the mainstream company line: there are not enough states having current calls for convention on the books.
Yes, over 700 have been made, but most are seen as outdated, "overcome by events" as the military would say, expired or otherwise irrelevant. One set of "legal experts" I've run across have even gone so far as to grade the 700 Club in terms of their strength or importance, or something. "Class I" applications, "Class II" applications ... and so forth. Anything to trivialize the matter. The only time they acknowledged that the quorum had been met the measure moved into committee disappeared.
That was decades ago.
"See, I told you! The government can legally veto the Constitution! They don't have to obey it! Hip, hip, hooray!"
Where have you been? They've been doing that with increasing speed and alicrity for over a century. Courts are complicit; the Prez is either the ringleader or the rubber-stamping doormat to it all. ...another reason I think a complete rewrite of the Constitution may well be in order. My respect for those who run the system is microscopic at best.
But self-delusional I am not. Holders of power are loath to abandon it. They find any and every excuse to retain and increase it. And it doesn't - and won't - help your cause to leverage your position on a fulcrum of cardboard boxes and duct tape.
EVEN IF the courts' position claiming "criminality" can be taken literally ...and EVEN IF that position is maintained in the current action ...and EVEN IF the government's position is that enough states have valid calls in for a Constitutional Convention ...there is the little matter that Article V speaks of the States' authorities in the matter, and not an individual citizen's. I see four separate points of dismissal, and I'm not even trying hard.
It's good to have dreams and ambitions and goals; I wish you and your fellow ideologues luck in this "Audacity of Hope" moment. You're going to need it.
