Legal Contradiction

 

Judge Coughenour created a legal contradiction in Walker v. United States. This contradiction was subsequently repeated and accepted by all future courts in both Walker lawsuits. Judge Coughenour ruled the “political question” doctrine expressed in Coleman allowed “exclusive” control of the Article V Convention call by Congress thus granting it new powers. The Framers of the Constitution stated clearly that no such “political question” existed or intended regarding a convention call. Thus, to determine that “political question” doctrine of Coleman did apply to a convention call required the court to rule on that issue. The contradiction arose in that Judge Coughenour dismissed the lawsuit with “prejudice” on the basis it was not justiciable. Judge Coughenour said the plaintiff, Bill Walker, lacked standing to sue and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction, that is the authority to rule on the issue of whether or not Congress was obligated to call a convention. The legal contradiction is the court asserted it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the issue before it (he obligation of Congress t call an Article V Convention) then after admitting it had no jurisdiction or authority to do so, ruled on that issue by associating the “political question” doctrine with an Article V Convention call, something no court had ever done before thus requiring a ruling on the part of the court to do so.

 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated standing to sue is obligatory and must be established before a court may rule on the subject matter of the lawsuit. Yet the terms and conditions of standing are extremely vague, subject to arbitrary change by the courts and  not enforced by federal law as are most court procedures. Lack of standing is supposed to prevent a ruling on the part of the court. The court clearly rejected Mr. Walker’s assertions of standing. Therefore according to the court, it did not have the authority to rule. Yet it did.