WELCOME TO ARTICLE 5. ORG

The Story of Walker v. United States

and

Walker v. Members of Congress
Our Purpose

The purpose of this website is to serve as a public resource and repository to tell the story in complete, full, unedited detail regarding two federal lawsuits, Walker v. United States and Walker v. Members of Congress both of which were intended cause Congress to obey the text of Article V of the Constitution and call an amendatory convention as required by that article.

Because this site is an information site, you will not find graphics, or pictures of other such distractions. What you will find is a date-by-date public record of everything that occurred in the federal courts regarding these two lawsuits (and related other actions). The site does have internal links but has no bookmarks. All of the material herein is in .pdf format and can be read by Adobe Reader. Any interested member of the public is invited to download any or all of the documents in this site for further study and reference.

The two lawsuits have moved through the court system all the way to the Supreme Court. They are concluded. Today, Article 5.org fully supports the current activities of Friends of an Article V Convention a non-partisan committee composed of scholars, writers, lawyers, judges, and other interested members of the general public. FOAVC is made up of Americans who wish to solve the problems and questions surrounding an amendatory convention so that an important, if not the most important component of our Constitution can occur and allow the people of this nation to peaceably assemble, debate and propose amendments to our Constitution in a lawful, constitutional manner. We urge everyone to visit their site. The convention represents the Founder's most cherished gift; a mechanism placed in the Constitution where our most fundamental American right can be exercised: the right "to alter or abolish our form of government" if its actions should become destructive of our right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Right now that right is being stifled by a recalcitrant Congress and that is...

The Story of Walker

The story of the two lawsuits, Walker v. United States, filed in December, 2000 and Walker v. Members of Congress, filed in September, 2004. Walker v. United States remained a federal district court case. Walker v. Members of Congress was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Walker v. United States was the first lawsuit in history to directly address the question of whether Congress was required to obey the text of the Constitution and call a convention when the states applied which the evidence in the suit clearly showed they had, or whether, despite the language of the Constitution which the Founders termed "peremptory" Congress could ignore, or veto, the direct text of the Constitution and refuse to call such a convention even though the states had applied.

In Walker v. United States, an over-length brief citing over two hundred Supreme Court rulings favoring the position of the plaintiff, Bill Walker of Seattle, Washington, was presented in district court. The court refused to read the document and ultimately, citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) established that under the court's political question doctrine, Congress was empowered to ignore or veto the direct text of the Constitution.

Following the court decision, an amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases, McConnell v Federal Election Commission (02-1674 et al.). The purpose of the brief was twofold: (1) To serve as a practice exercise for a new Walker case intended to go to the Supreme Court and (2) to find out whether or not the assertions made in Walker v. United States were in fact true. This last point was accomplished simply by reversing the position that had been held in Walker v United States and agreeing with the political question doctrine set forth in the ruling in that lawsuit. Because of the Supreme Court Rules, the amicus was not allowed to be presented to the court because no attorney licensed to practice before the court would agree to be associated with the presentation made in the amicus. All attorneys indicated they could not accept the conclusions as true. The fact the amicus was never presented to the Court did not matter. Because the attorneys had reacted so violently, it was obvious by this reaction that what had been stated, that Congress possessed a veto and the effect of that veto was far-reaching, so much so, as to establish the possibility of a dictatorship in the government, that no attorney could accept it. Thus, if the conclusions of the amicus were false, then the opposite, that which had been asserted in Walker v. United States, must be true. It was time for a new lawsuit.

Based on new grounds of standing, Walker v Members of Congress was filed in 2004. The suit was significant in several ways. First, whereas Walker v. United States had sued Congress as a group, Walker v. Members of Congress sued the members as individuals. This meant that each member, was required under federal law, to individually determine their opposition to the lawsuit and request the United States represent them opposing the lawsuit. All members of Congress opposed the lawsuit by requesting the government represent them. Despite the language of the complaint which removed any member of Congress from the suit if he supported obeying the Constitution, no member of Congress chose to obey the Constitution. Thus, all members of Congress have publicly advocated they oppose obeying the direct text of the Constitution and support they having a veto of its text.

Secondly, it brought to the attention of the courts that such refusal was a violation of several criminal laws among them, 18 U.S.C. 1918, violation of oath of office by federal officials. The penalty for such violation is one year in prison and removal from office.

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.

What was Gained by the Lawsuits?

At first glance it would appear that the two lawsuits were complete failures as the courts at every level denied the lawsuit and appeared not to have ruled at all. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Before the two lawsuits, Congress had hidden behind what are termed in the legal world, "latches" or the right to act as if something that is there is not there. Congress has for years simply done nothing regarding the convention call.

But the lawsuits changed that. True, they were not successful in achieving the desired end that was sought. But what they did do was force the courts to assign Congress a position, a stance, on the issue that previously before it had been able to avoid. The district court, in Walker v United States and again in Walker v. Members of Congress extended what is known as the Coleman doctrine, based on the lawsuit, Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) to include not only the amendatory process previously controlled by Congress as stipulated by Article V, but the convention method of amendment as well, thus giving Congress "exclusive" control of the entire amendatory process. Further, the courts (including the Supreme Court) endorsed the right of Congress to "ignore or veto the direct text of the Constitution" such that even if the Constitution stipulated that Congress was required to take an action (such as a convention call or hold an election, for example) it now possessed the power to refuse to do so under what the court termed, "the political question doctrine." Finally, by employing Coleman, the court allowed the Congress to take actions against the state legislatures such as was done during the civil war to compel the compliance in the ratification vote. The court did not state at any time that the veto of text was limited only to Article V. Indeed, as any such stipulation would be based on authority granted the court by the Constitution, and the court has allowed that such authority may be vetoed, it is logical to presume such limit could not be imposed. What we have now is a runaway Congress.

The lawsuits also established that the actions of Congress are, in fact, criminal in nature rather than simply a civil or political action. Thus, the refusal of the members of Congress to call a convention not only violates the Constitution, but is a criminal act as well.

Finally, based on the actions of the government taken at the Supreme Court, the lawsuits established that the above assertions are accepted by the government "as fact and law." The Congress now has no place to hide. Their veto and refusal to obey the Constitution is now a matter of public record. The fact they have criminal acts is a matter of public record. The fact that every member of Congress individually decided to oppose obeying the Constitution is now a public fact. Congress can no longer hide behind the walls of the Capitol Building on this issue.

It is for the above reasons that efforts will continue to compel Congress to call a convention for the most important reason of all---to preserve the Constitution itself. What value are constitutional guarantees of rights if the government does not have to obey them?

A copy of the pertinent parts of the Coleman decision can be read here. Copies of the criminal federal laws the members of Congress violated can be read here. Copy of the Supreme Court rule can be read here.



Site Links

All court documents and the history of the suit can be found here: Main Page

The over-length brief upon which this suit is based can read here: Brief

You may view a short documentary about the suit: Video

More information can be found at our companion website: CC2

Interested in what subjects will be discussed at a convention? Want to know how many times your state has applied for a convention? Would you like to know what amendment subjects the states have applied for? CLICK HERE

http://www.article5.org/

Creation of "Rights", No Responsibility and Loss of Privileges
By Jason Hardaway

Freedom without responsibility is self-centeredness and leads to chaotic breakdown of society and the loss of freedom. Every action or decision has its consequences. Without taking responsibility for our actions and decisions as an individual and dealing with those consequences, then the community or more likely the government will have to deal with those consequences. Then as the government begins acting irresponsibly, those consequences fall back on the citizens who have already refused to be responsible as well, sending the responsibility back to the government. The government then begins reducing the peoples choices in order to eliminate the peoples responsibility, and creates ¡°rights¡± for the people. As more and more privileges and responsibilities are converted to "rights", the government continues to gain control over the people. The irresponsible people then come to expect those "rights" to be delivered to them. With that kind of expectation the government has power to withhold those "rights" or tease the people, and the people become pawns or subjects of the government. This transition is one to socialism and dictatorships resulting in loss of freedom.

As individuals we have been granted free will by our Creator. This gives us the ability to choose how we live our lives, but these choices will have consequences, some rewarding and others will be punishable. There are also individual rights, and there are also consequences and punishments for the misuse or nonuse of those rights. The people have the ability to give up those rights, by choice and being irresponsible. The privileges we have can be revoked as punishment. When rights and privileges are abused and not taken with responsibility they can be lost, confused, intertwined and new "rights" are defined that are not really rights at all.

In the Declaration of Independence for the United States of America it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So some of our rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not a right in itself, but a free will choice to be happy, the ability to purse it that is the right.

There are also boundaries in which our pursuits and choices in utilizing our rights must be maintained, and those boundaries are exampled throughout the Bible and exemplified in the life of Jesus Christ. Other rights are listed in our Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, such as freedom of religion. Although the United States and our Constitution was founded on Christian Biblical principles other religions have taken advantage of that freedom. A united country cannot stand with divided interests. Matthew 6:24 says "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Likewise a country cannot have citizens that have dual citizenships or loyalties, to two countries, laws, cultures or religions, either they will hate the one and love the other or be devoted to the one and despise the other.

Other rights include the freedom of speech and peaceable assemblies in protest or support. There is also the right of individuals to bear arms. Again there are responsible boundaries for such rights.

The government cannot be irresponsible by not holding the people responsible for their actions. We the people are to be proactive and to be responsible in providing needs for our family as well, such as health care and education. The government may be responsible in ensuring access to these entities, but they are not "rights" that the government is to give the people. As the government continues to bail out individuals or companies due to their lack of responsibility it becomes a slippery slope. A downhill slide that becomes attractive for those who are looking for an easy way out or free ride by not having to be responsible for their actions and decisions. As this continues privileges and rights become redefined as the government desires resulting in the loss of our liberties, our freedom.

There is a saying that holds true; there is a price to pay. We either pay now and play later, or play now and pay later. Either way there is a price to pay.

Thank God that He is in control, and our hope is in Him and our one true Saviour is Jesus Christ. The Bible says the message of the cross is foolishness to the nonbelievers. Sadly this can also be said about all of the Bible and the principles God set forth in it. His discipline and punishment of His creation is just. He is also full of mercy, compassion, grace and love, so that none shall perish.

May the one true God, whose only begotten Son died and rose so that we may live, bless America, whose sons and daughters have died so that we may have our freedoms here and around the world.

You may contact Jason Hardaway by email.

go to National Debt Awareness Center web site.


although I am not a believer in organized religion....the first paragraph stands on it's own