Walker vs Members of Congress (Article V)

[mod mom]

I was reading comments on an Autorank article posted as Kos and found this excellent video. Was everyone aware of this except me? :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg&search=walker%20%2Bcc2

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kster]

2. Kick-n-Recommended..nt

[Bill Bored]

3. A Constitutional Convention to stop privatized elections?

OK, and what else do you think the Bushcons would throw in there given the opportunity? Be careful what you wish for because they'd LOVE to get their filthy little hands on that old rag, the Constitution and rewrite it 21st Century NeoCon style! You think corporations are bad as "people?" Wait til they become "the Church" or "the State" or whatever else they have in mind if they can actually rewrite the Constitution!

I'm just saying it's no small matter tinkering with the Constitution especially with all those Red-state wackos running loose.

Land Shark has already told us that secret vote counting is illegal. If he can prove his case, it all goes away. So why on earth would we need a Constitutional Convention for that? I think I agree with him up to a point, that we should enforce existing laws instead of legislating new ones. That's why he (and some others) opposes HR 550. I can understand that position, but please explain to me how this is consistent with asking for a Constitution Convention to "outlaw" secret vote counting which we are saying is already illegal?

If we can discuss this without getting into each others' faces it might be interesting.

BTW, Constitutional Amendments can be written without Constitutional Conventions! There are plenty of good ideas for those. Jessie Jackson Jr's. proposed Constitutional right to vote for President for one. But you don't need a Convention for that.

[kster]

5. All the politicians are Remaining silent about the machines. I say do it

Shake these SOB's up a bit....

Article V of the Constitution places the power to amend the Constitution in the hands of the State Legislatures and the Congress. In a broader sense, Article V provides the power to fundamentally change the course and conduct of the United States government. Change, through Article V, can occur by reinstating the balance of power between the States and Congress, separating executive powers as necessary, over-ruling United States Supreme Court decisions, over-ruling Presidential orders, and even removing appointed or elected officers of the United States government from office. Our mission is to present proposed constitutional amendments to the public at large, the States, and the Congress to achieve these changes.

http://www.articlev.com/

[Bill Bored]

7. This is the same sort of nonesense that allowed CA to recall Gray Davis

for no good reason at all. (And almost resulted in the destruction of Planet Beta 5 too!)

Come on kster, read between the lines. You put the Constitution in the hands of the wing nuts in the SAME super-majority of states that don't have paper ballots and audits and see what's left of this country after that!

[kster]

8. I'm lucky I can read the lines, and now you want me to read between them

just giving an opinion and waiting to read others thoughts about this thread.

[Bill Bored]

9. OK. Sounds good. Nothing against amendments -- just the convention!

That's playing with fire IMO. Interested to see what Land Shark has to say.
Cheers!
:toast:

[Bill Bored]

4. More on Constitutional Conventions:

Since the 1960s, state legislatures have submitted petitions for constitutional conventions when Congress refused to pass controversial amendments. Three of these amendments would have allowed prayers in the schools, prohibited busing for racial balance, and permitted the states to make abortions illegal. In each of these cases, however, supporters fell short of getting the 34 states needed for calling a constitutional convention.

Read more here (hopefully before it's too late and we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater):

http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/const_conven.htm

[Bill Bored]

6. More...

Many people have voiced concern over the convention method of amending the Constitution. Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago. At that time the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers also violated the procedure for changing the Articles of Confederation. Instead of requiring approval of all the state legislatures, the signers of the Constitution called for ratification by elected state conventions in only nine of the 13 states.

Another point of anxiety is that Article V of the Constitution says nothing about what a convention may or may not do. If a convention is held, must it deal with only one proposed amendment? Or could the delegates vote on any number of amendments that were introduced? The Constitution itself provides no answers to these questions.

http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/const_conven.htm

[rumpel]

20. I'd say the SCOTUS wiil be between a rock and a hard place:

this is from Walker's petition:

Alexander Hamilton chaired the Committee of Style during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. His committee’s responsibility was to author the final written language of the Constitution reflecting the meaning and intent of the Founders. Thus, Hamilton can be viewed as the author of Article V. Hamilton’s Federalist 85 text makes it clear the Founders did not intend the convention call to be “a political question” that was “the province of Congress” to decide. In sum, their interpretation was that upon the proper number of applying states, a call for a convention to propose amendments was peremptory, obligatory, and non-discretionary on the part of Congress. Furthermore, the text makes it clear there is no other requirement in the meaning, intent, or written language of the Constitution for the states to satisfy, other than a two-thirds numeric count, in order to compel Congress to call a convention to propose amendments.

However it is obvious the two lower courts do not agree with this interpretation and it is up to this Court to make the final determination. Because of the absolute nature of the question, i.e.,. either a convention must be called or does not have to be, even a denial of this writ of certiorari will, in fact, become a ruling, the Court having sided with the lower courts’ interpretation that under the political question doctrine, the government is free to ignore the direct text of the Constitution thus rendering the text advisory rather that peremptory in meaning.

snip

The political question doctrine invoked by the lower courts has nothing to do with standing. The ruling, if left in-tact, does permit the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The Constitution provides for two methods of amendment proposal, not one and certainly not one entirely controlled by a single political body. As with the rest of the Constitution, the principle of separation of powers applies. If the writ of certiorari is denied will be in fact a ruling by the Court. The Court will have affirmed that text in the constitution can be vetoed by the government thus rendering all the language susceptible to such veto. Further, if the doctrine of Coleman of “exclusive” congressional control as reference by the courts is extended to the convention, then the entire amendment process is placed under the control of a single political body which also has the power to ignore the text of the document. It will render the process “dead letter.”

Hence, Congress can “amend” the Constitution anyway it pleases and cannot be reviewed by any court. Logically, as that court will have conceded that the basis on which the review is conducted, the text of the Constitution itself, can be ignored by that government it follows any ruling or review can be similarly ignored. The Court has in the past held the political question doctrine allows for a branch of government to execute a constitutional duty as opposed to another branch of government. It has never ruled that the doctrine grants veto power over that duty such that the branch of government can simply decide not to perform it or execute it where such discretion was not intended. Such discretion allows for “dead letter”.

http://www.article5.org/Webcopy,%20Writ%20of%20Certorari,%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.pdf

they may refuse to hear the case...:shrug:

[kster]

10. kick.nt

[bleever]

11. Very interesting! The Constitutional requirement to call a convention,

and the privatization of the electoral process.

Thanks, mod mom. K&R.

[Bill Bored]

12. Interesting? Is that it? nt

[kster]

13. kick.nt

[DemReadingDU]

14. wow, interesting video!

kicking, but too late to recommend

[MelissaB]

15. Electronic voting starting at about 5+min.

:kick:

[MelissaB]

16. CRAP! I wanted to send this thread to the greatest, and it's too late.

:cry:

[rumpel]

17. I know, when I saw it first, it was too late, too

:(

How'bout reposting? I think everyone has to see this!

[mod mom]

22. repost it and we'll kick it. I really just found it by accident.

[kster]

23. Yes we will......nt

[Bill Bored]

18. Can you please express opinions on this instead of just nominating it?

Are you for or against a Constitutional Convention?

[rumpel]

19. Is it possible it is now moot?

filed May 22, 2006

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILL WALKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES, as Individuals and in
their Official Capacities; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 05-35023
D.C. No. CV-04-01977-RSM
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2006 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Bill Walker appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing sua
sponte for lack of jurisdiction his action alleging that the Members of Congress,
the Treasury Secretary, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue violated the
United States Constitution by failing to call a constitutional convention to consider
repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment. Walker sought to hold defendants both
civilly and criminally liable, and also sought reparation of federal income taxes
that had been "extorted" from him by defendants.
We agree with the district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction
over the action and affirm the dismissal for the reasons stated in the district court’s
order to show cause, filed on October 8, 2004.1
AFFIRMED.

footnotes on page 1
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/memdispo.nsf/pdfview/052206/$File/05-35023.PDF

on edit it is now on appeal in Supreme Court
http://www.article5.org/Supreme%20Court%20Page.htm

I have to read it still myself

[Bill Bored]

21. Walker wants to repeal the Income Tax! -- Not E-Voting!

Regardless of how you may feel about taxes, any Constitutional Convention opens us up for all kinds of amendments and repeals of amendments, like the Bill of Rights for example.

One way to get rid of e-voting is, well, to get rid of VOTING altogether! You can do this with a Constitutional Convention quite easily, but I'd advise against it.

It might be prudent to see who's behind this before jumping on board the Convention Express.