A Quick Summation Of The Walker Lawsuits


A summation absent any references of the two Walker lawsuits, Walker v. United States and Walker v. Members of Congress is as follows:


A federal district court in Seattle ruled in Walker v. United States (2000) that the Congress could disobey the law of the Constitution under the political question doctrine. The district court ruled the plaintiff had no standing to sue and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to issue a ruling in the suit. Nevertheless court issued its political question doctrine ruling, which had never been issued by any court previously regarding the convention call based on an advisory opinion issued by the Supreme Court. Advisory opinions have no force or weight of law. This advisory opinion also stated that any decisions based on its recommendations would also be advisory. Thus, the original intent of the Constitution, that Congress was peremptorily required to call a convention, remain untouched.


In Walker v. Members of Congress (2004), the members of Congress voluntarily and deliberately joined a federal lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution. The attorney of record provided written proof in open public court that as a matter of public record that each member of Congress individually made this decision. It is against federal criminal law for any member of Congress to join a federal lawsuit to advocate such action or to advocate such a position.


The attorneys of record for the members of Congress based their actions in the Walker v. Members of Congress lawsuit on an advisory opinion issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court, in that advisory opinion, stated that decision, and any subsequent decisions related to the amendatory process, was given “wholly without constitutional authority” meaning the advisory opinion on which the attorneys of record based their actions had no force or weight of law whatsoever thus leaving the peremptory original intent of the Constitution intact.


As a result of these actions by the member of Congress’ attorney of record, federal law required the Attorney General of the United States write for the public record, a report to Congress explaining the reasons why the law of the Constitution can be disobeyed by members of Congress, who made this decision and when it was made. The public report, by law, was required to be submitted to Congress before final arguments in the appeal process of Walker v. Members of Congress were concluded thus giving their attorneys the opportunity to “change their mind” if so instructed by their clients, the members of Congress. The members did not so instruct their attorney of record.


Walker v. Members of Congress was appealed to the Supreme Court. Federal law requires that all facts and law submitted in writs of certiorari by the plaintiff (appellant) to the Supreme Court must either be (1) waived, meaning the defendant (appellee) in the lawsuit admits as a matter of fact and law that the statements made by the plaintiff are true and correct or (2) opposed, in which case federal law requires the defendant give the reasons why the alleged facts and law are not true and correct.


The attorney of record for the members of Congress, the Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity, waived challenging the facts and law presented by the plaintiff in the Walker v. Members of Congress writ of certiorari. The writ of certiorari is public record. The members of Congress (acting through their attorney of record) therefore admitted in open court for the public record that the following is true and correct as a 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 such a 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 Congress’ 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 as well as a violation of federal criminal law and;


(7) that by joining a lawsuit to advocate in open public court they can ignore, veto, disobey or otherwise thwart a convention call, the members of Congress violated federal criminal law.