Subjects Inside: Article
V Applications
FAQ,
Application Counts By
Congress, Articles,
AVC Legislative Report, CRS Reports,
Convention of State, Compact for America, COS, CFA--Which States are Which?, The Historic Record of COS, COS, CFA Laws, COS Articles, CRS Reports on COS/CFA, COS, CFA Financial Records, CFA Financials, COS Financials, COS/CFA Financial Conclusions, John
Birch Society, Con-Con, Runaway
Convention, Who Called the Convention, Congressional
Vote on a "Runaway" Convention, "Obey
the Constitution, Only Two More States", Illegal Rescissions, The Phony Burger Letter, The
Madison Letter, Fotheringham Exchange, JBS Articles, Sibley
Lawsuit, General Interest, Article V.org,
Robert Natelson, History
of Article V, Counting the Applications, The Numeric Count History, Congressional Decision of May 5, 1789,
Development of Article V, The Committee of the Whole, The Committee of Detail, August 30, September 10, Committee of Style, September 15, Official Government Documents,
History of FOAVC, Founders,
Audio/Visual,
Links,
Contact
Us, Legal
Page, 14th Amendment, The Electoral Process, Packets,
Definitions,
Numeric, (
Applications grouped by numeric count as required by the Constitution),
Same Subject (Applications grouped by amendment subject, not required by the Constitution for a convention call).
Sibley Lawsuit Loses Final
Appeals
A denial of a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, has ended the
case of Sibley v Ryan/McConnell. The writ was filed by Montgomery
Sibley after an appeal in the District Court of Appeals was denied on
December 15, 2016. No further legal actions are contemplated in the
case.
Sibley filed his suit in
what is termed an "Article I" court, that is a federal court created
under authority of Article I of the Constitution, instead of an
"Article III" court. The difference constitutionally between the two
courts has been that an Article I court does not require standing while
an Article III court does.
An Article I court, in this case the Superior Court for
the District of Columbia, is equivalent to a county superior court in a
state and generally deals with similar judicial matters. However, under
the law creating the court, any matter may be submitted to the court
for its consideration. Sibley filed his suit to order the court to
compel Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell to call an Article V Convention. The record of applications
is clear: the states have applied in sufficient number to cause
11 convention calls. Congress has counted
35 states in its recent counting of applications.
The Court of Appeals ruling did not address the issue of
a required convention call but instead focused entirely on the question
of standing which the court said also applied in an Article I court. As
Sibley had already admitted he lacked standing the Appeals Court denied
his appeal. In each instance lawsuits seeking to have Congress obey the
Constitution has been
thwarted by the courts on the same basis: lack of standing which the
government thus far as successfully used in each case. No federal court
has thus far even bothered to consider the merits of the case which
simply are: Congress is mandated to call a convention which they have
not.
Given the position of Congress in its
legal battles over calling an Article V Convention that of outright
opposition, there is no reason to believe Congress will be disposed to call a convention under
any circumstances or even respect a convention called by the states.
The court's ruling may be read below by clicking the image to enlarge:
Page Last Updated: 5 MAY 2017
