The Appeals Court Ruling

 

The effect of a court ruling can never be judged by its length. It required only three sentences for the three judge panel of Circuit Judges Betty Fletcher, Stephen S. Trott and Consuelo M. Callahan to approve that members of Congress can disobey the law of the Constitution in criminal violation of their oath of office under the political question doctrine expressed in Coleman. In a three sentence ruling, the three judges approved the lower court ruling of District Court Judge Martinez who in turn simply re-quoted the ruling of Judge Coughenour in Walker v United States. The three circuit judges gave no independent reasons for their decision. Instead they merely reaffirmed those reasons given by Judge Martinez. As with the lower court, the appeals court judges did not exempt or immunize the members of Congress from criminal penalties associated with violation of their oath of office.

 

The court released their ruling in an unpublished memorandum published May 22, 2006. Usually, under court rules unpublished memorandums do not establish court precedent except in special circumstances. However in this instance, the special circumstances exist meaning that the memorandum did establish court precedent. Walker v Members of Congress is precedent because it is the only federal lawsuit to have ever been appealed to the Supreme Court and the Circuit Court directly addressing the constitutional issue of a convention call and the Article V Convention. All other federal lawsuits have dealt with congressional amendatory powers. Therefore Walker is precedent because it is the first lawsuit and by default becomes precedent.  Comments