The Final Irony

 

The government attorneys representing Congress asserted in Walker v. United States and Walker v. Members of Congress that Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) which granted Congress “exclusive...sole and complete control over the amending process.” was the binding authority for an Article V Convention call by Congress. However, Coleman is not a “binding authority.” It is, in its own words, an “advisory opinion” having no force or weight of law whatsoever.

 

Therefore Judge Coughenour’s ruling in Walker v. United States (which was based on Coleman), and its subsequent repetition in Walker v Members of Congress that members of Congress have a choice as to whether or not to obey the law of the Constitution as to calling an Article V Convention under the political question doctrine is an advisory opinion, and not a binding authority. In order for Judge Coughenour to have made an actual binding decision, he would have first had to have dealt with the legal contradiction of standing, then refuted Coleman as the basis for his ruling as that decision mandated that all similar rulings were only advisory in nature, and therefore not binding.

 

As the Coleman decision specifies any decision by a federal court on the amendatory process is an advisory opinion, any court opinion rendered after Coleman based on the Coleman opinion cannot be a binding court ruling as it is only an advisory opinion, that is a court opinion which has no weight or force of law whatsoever. Any binding decision would therefore be based on Supreme Court rulings (Dodge v. Woolsey, Hawke v. Smith, Dillon v. Gloss, United States v. Sprague ) made prior to Coleman all which state Congress must call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the states apply for a convention call.  The Coleman ruling did not overturn these earlier rulings.  The Coleman decision did not even discuss the Article V Convention.  While Judge Coughenour, in his opinion, in Walker v. United States, ignored these rulings, he did not state anywhere that he was nullifying them.  Thus, these “missing” Supreme Court rulings which are not advisory opinions, remain in effect.  As they merely restate the words of Article V carry the full weight and force of law, specifically the law of the Constitution itself.  As an advisory opinion has no weight or force of law whatsoever, clearly it cannot trump the law of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.  Thus, neither Coleman nor the Walker lawsuits altered the “peremptory” requirement of Article V on Congress to call an Article V Convention.

 

The facts are that all members of Congress chose to advocate the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in Coleman in open public court. The members advocated they “exclusively” controlled the amendment process under the political question doctrine and therefore could disobey the law of the Constitution. They criminally violated their oaths of office. What the members of Congress and their lawyers overlooked, was that Coleman is an advisory opinion having no weight or force of law whatsoever. No court ever stated the advice in Coleman was lawful or legal, meaning the court did not state if Congress took the advice in Coleman these lawbreakers were exempted from criminal laws intended to punish them for doing so.

 

Further the members of Congress (acting through their attorney of record) conceded in public record in open court that as matter of fact and law:

 

(1) that under Article V of the United States Constitution, Congress is required to call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for one;

 

(2) that the Article V Convention call is based on a numeric count of applying states;

 

(3) that all 50 states have submitted 567 applications for an Article V Convention;

 

(4) that an Article V Convention call is peremptory on Congress;

 

(5) that the political subject matter of an amendment application is irrelevant and does not effect their obligation to call an Article V Convention;

 

(6) that the refusal of the members of Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and immediately call a convention is a violation of their oath of office and a federal criminal offense;

 

(7) that by joining a lawsuit to advocate such a position in open public court, the members of Congress also violated federal criminal law;

    

The final irony is the members of the Congress of the United States, provided documentary proof for the public record, that they formally and officially terminated the Constitution of the United States from having any legal effect on their actions.  They did so without any leave from any federal criminal laws designed to penalize any member of the government who commit such acts, and did all this based on a court advisory opinion which did not alter the fundamental law of the Constitution one bit.

In short, they committed criminal acts and gained nothing.