Public Opportunities by
Federal Officials
Friends of the Article V Convention (FOAVC) is a non-partisan organization dedicated to one goal: having Congress obey its oath of office thus obeying the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as required by that law. The states have applied in more than sufficient number to satisfy the two-thirds application requirement for a convention call required by Article V. Congress, in criminal violation of its oath of office has refused to obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention.
Members of Congress have lied regarding their obligation to call an Article V Convention. They have asserted their obligation to obey the Constitution and their oath of office when in fact they are on public record as refusing to obey that oath and support disobeying the Constitution. In short, they have lied.
An example of this like comes from Texas Senator John Cornyn who, as a party to the lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress, publicly supported disobeying the law of the Constitution. FOAVC Founder Daniel Summars, wrote to Senator Cornyn on July 1, 2007 to ascertain his public position on obeying the law of the Constitution and calling an Article V Convention . On September 5, 2007, Mr. Summars received a response from Senator Cornyn who asserted that he [Senator Cornyn] is obligated to obey the applications by his oath of office but that Congress “may” call a convention clearly indicated Congress has an option or choice in the matter. The language of Article V clearly states Congress “shall” call a convention upon the application of two thirds of the states leaving Congress “no option” in the issue. Thus Senator Cornyn lied by using the word “may” instead of “shall” as an excuse not to call a convention when the word “may” does not exist in the Article V Convention clause of the Constitution. As all 50 states have applied for a convention call far in excess of the two-thirds requirement of Article V, as noted by Senator Cornyn, Congress is obligated to call a convention. The senator did tell the truth about one thing: he is obligated under his oath of office and federal law to call an Article V Convention. Senator Cornyn based his “may” congressional option on a convention call after he chose to join against Walker v Members of Congress in violation of his oath of office.
Obviously this exchange of emails are public documents. The sender of the email Daniel Summars clearly identified himself as representing a group of citizens rather than presenting himself as a private individual. He requested the senator’s “position” on a public issue, a clause of the Constitution, clearly indicating a request for his official position rather than his opinion as a private citizen. There was no assurance whatsoever, stated or implied, that the senator’s response would remain a private matter or not be made available to the public at large. Finally, the inquiry addressed a duty of public office of the senator rather than any private citizen capacity Senator Cornyn may have.
As Senator Cornyn advocated an alteration of our constitutional form of government in a public document that he advocates that the applications for a convention must be within a single term of Congress. Obviously, this allows that the applications for a convention call do not come within a single term of Congress, Congress has the right to refuse to call a convention. There is no support for this position either in Supreme Court rulings, the law of the Constitution, or in comments written by the Framers. There is no mention of a formal amendment or proposing such in the senator’s email. Hence, as the senator also advocated Congress “may” call instead of “shall” call an Article V Convention, he has again criminally violated his oath of office. Obviously as the senator quotes the oath of office in his email and states he has taken such an oath, he is fully aware of its requirements as well as its criminal sanctions.
Another example of lies about the Article V Convention comes from Legislative Correspondent David J. Ziemba of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh’s office. His email response was made to the same inquiry sent to Senator Cornyn. In the email, Mr. Ziemba advocates an alteration in the constitutional form of our government. He quotes Article V whose language clearly indicating the states apply for a convention call by Congress. Mr. Ziemba then asserts the applications must be for the same amendment subject meaning the applications must address the same subject or Congress can refuse to call. The law of the Constitution does not state this. Thus Mr. Ziemba advocates an alteration to Article V without constitutional amendment in violation of his oath of office which, as a government employee, is the same as members of Congress are required to take.
Mr. Ziemba states several other lies in his reply demonstrating members of Congress, or in this case, a member of their staff, will deliberately lie to the public regarding the calling of an Article V Convention.
The lies are:
§ Using the term “many states have applied implying less than the two thirds needed or 34 states have applied.” The record shows all 50 states have applied for a convention call with a total of 567 applications.
§ Mr. Ziemba refers to the “one state short myth” on a convention call for direct election of senators. That is a lie. The record shows the last application submitted by the states for a convention call for direct election of senators, a total of 31applications, was submitted to Congress in 1911. There were only 46 states in the Union in 1911. Two-thirds of 46 is 30.66 or 31 states. Therefore the states were not “one short” as Mr. Ziemba states.
§ Mr. Ziemba references federal income tax applications which are for repeal, not limit on income tax rates and suggests there have not been enough applications on this subject alone to warrant a convention call. There are 39 applications for income tax repeal. The Constitution only requires 34 applications
§ Mr. Ziemba references apportionment as not having enough applications to cause a convention call. That is a lie. There are 36 applications for apportionment.
§ Mr. Ziemba references balanced budget as not having enough applications to cause a convention call. That is a lie. There are 38 applications for balanced budget, sufficient not only for a convention call but ratification as well.
§ Mr. Ziemba states there are a “lengthy list of questions” surrounding a convention call thus implying as there are “questions” Congress has the right to ignore the entire issue and refuse to call. This is a lie. A convention call is peremptory upon Congress. Thus Congress has no option in the matter of a convention call. Any statement to the contrary which in any manner raises an objection to the call publicly advocated by any member of the government, such as Mr. Ziemba, violates their oath of office.
§ Mr. Ziemba does state the truth in one sentence. He states “...if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States, there would be a response by Congress.” He is correct. Congress has responded by joining a federal lawsuit (Walker v Members of Congress) in violation of their oath of office and asserting Congress can disobey the law of the Constitution.
Yet another example is from State Senator Chris Harris of the state of Texas. In a letter to Daniel Summars, Mr. Harris discusses Walker v Members of Congress and his interpretation of the results of that lawsuit. As Mr. Harris is not a federal official bound by the federal oath of office, he has committed no crime in voicing his comments. However, as these comments are so erroneous, the corrections to them are presented here. The purpose is to show that public officials of all levels will and have provided misinformation regarding an Article V Convention call.
The relevant text of Mr. Harris’ letter states:
“To this date [September 27, 2007] the convention method of proposing amendments to the U.S. constituent [sic] has not been utilized. While there have been several hundred applications submitted, Congress has not received enough applications that deal with the same subject matter to call a convention. A federal court case considered but rejected the claim that Congress is required to call a convention based on the sum total of all applications to date, and an appeal of this ruling was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, I have no doubt that if there is an authentic national movement by two-thirds of the states there will be a response by Congress.”
Mr. Harris is correct that as of the date of his letter, September 27, 2007 the convention method of amendment to the U.S. Constitution not “constituent” has not been utilized. With such a demonstration of his basic grasp of English and spelling, it is no wonder that Mr. Harris clearly cannot read basic English such as is found in the Constitution. As has been stated in this FAQ several times, the language of Article V clearly specifies the applications are for a convention call, not a specific amendment subject. The convention is authorized to propose amendments not amendment meaning the call applications cannot limit a convention to one particular subject as would be the case if the applications were for a specific amendment subject.
Mr. Harris provides complete misinformation regarding subject applications. As has been shown, at least three amendment subjects (assuming same subject was the correct interpretation of Article V) have been submitted by the states to cause a convention call each on their own merits. The subjects are income tax repeal, apportionment and balanced budget amendment.
The federal lawsuit Mr. Harris refers to is obviously Walker v Members of Congress as it is the only federal lawsuit that has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court did not reject the argument of “sum total of all applications to date.” It rejected this as well as same subject and stated that the entire issue was a “political question” for Congress to decide as indicated by United States Texas Senator Cornyn in his email and that Congress “may” call a convention but is not required to do so. Both senators Cornyn and Harris seem to assert that “if there is an authentic national movement by two-thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress” a convention will be called. As Congress joined against the lawsuit to establish the right to disobey the law of the Constitution, it would appear they already have given a response. Further, neither senator bothers to explain what is an “authentic” movement. Do the senators imply that if Congress determines the movement or applications based on them are not “authentic” they also can be ignored? Obviously so.