The Missing Supreme Court
Rulings
When issuing his ruling in Walker v United States Federal District Court Judge John C. Coughenour quoted from the brief submitted by Mr. Bill Walker plaintiff in the suit. The quote read as follows:
“Article Vprovides a single numeric standard of two-thirds of the applying state legislatures, which then obligates Congress to call a convention. The obligation is non-discretionary. … * The Congressional Record demonstrates all 50 states have submitted applications for a convention. There is no time limit set in Article V that the states must satisfy in their applications, nor does Article Vpermit recession of any application. Article Vdoes not demand the applications deal with the same issue, nor does it establish any other requirement upon the legislatures other than a numeric count. As 50 states have submitted applications for a convention to propose amendments and as this exceeds the two-thirds requirement of Article V, the two-thirds requirement is thus satisfied. It was the clear intent of the Founding father that Congress have no discretion in the matter of calling a convention.”
As noted in a later brief, Mr. Walker states:
“*Judge Coughenour created an ellipse in quoting the plaintiff, omitting one sentence. The omitted sentence read: “This has been recognized by the Supreme Court in several cases.” The sentence was footnoted as follows:
“See generally Dodge v. Woolsey 59 U.S. 331 (1855);Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920); Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921); United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931); Colemanv. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939.)”
#####
Except for Colemanin his “province of Congress” statement, Judge Coughenour therefore deliberately ignored any Supreme Court rulings favoring the position that the Government must obey the Constitution as originally intended obviously interpreting Colemanas overturning these previous Supreme Court opinions. While Coleman does discuss the amendatory process it never mentions nor alludes to the amendment convention. Therefore, it must be assumed that Coleman was intended by the Court as dealing exclusively with the power of Congress to propose amendments not to control the entire process of amendment proposal and ratification to the point of veto.
The Court has specifically addressed the obligatory nature of the convention clause in Article Vin case. The interpretation was always the same: Congress must call. There has never been a single dissent on the Court in regards to this interpretation.
In Dodgev. Woolsey the Court stated:
“The departments of the government are legislative, executive and judicial. They are coordinate in degree to the extent of the powers delegated to each of them. Each, in the exercise of its powers, is independent of the other, but all, rightfully done by either, is binding upon the others. The constitution is supreme over all of them, because the people who ratified it have made it so; consequently, any thing which may be done unauthorized by it is unlawful. … It is supreme over the people of the United States, aggregately and in their separate sovereignties, because they have excluded themselves from any direct or immediate agency in making amendments to it, and have directed that amendments should be made representatively for them, by the congress of the United States, when two thirds of both houses shall propose them; or where the legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths of them, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by congress.”
Dodgev. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855.) (Footnotes Deleted.) (Emphasis added.)
In Hawkev. Smith, the Supreme Court said:
“The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article.
This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. …
The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by the action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
Hawkev. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920.) (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphasis added.)
In Dillon v. Gloss, the Court reaffirmed its previous interpretations of Article Vsaying:
“An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since expired, it subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without its consent, of its equal suffrage in the senate. A further mode of proposal—as yet never invoked—is provided, which is, that on the application of two thirds of the states Congress shall call convention for the purpose.”
Dillonv. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921.) (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphasis added.)
The final Supreme Court case is United States v. Spraguewhere the Court said:
“The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity, and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
United States v. Sprague , 282 U.S. 716 (1931.) (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphasis added.)
These decisions obviously reinforce the interpretation of Article Vexpressed by Hamilton in Federalist 85.
More importantly, however, the timeline of these decisions indicates a significant fact: A clear interpretation of the action of Congress vis-à-vis the convention call was specified by the Court prior to there being sufficient states to compel Congress to call a convention to propose amendments. After there were sufficient states applying to compel such a call, the Court addressed the matter in an identical fashion three more times. Congress ignored all rulings.