This posting is now simply an historical remnant, documenting the appeal to the Supreme Court in the interest of the People of the United States and the supreme law of the U S Constitution, the first "Contract with America".

The reson for the appeal was to reclaim the government from those who bought it. But now the Law of our Constitution is abandoned; ignored, meaningless, nullified.

The Writ of Certiorari.

Article V ---- The Constitution, The Congress, the Court, The People

Please allot time read this, or print it out and read it later. You WILL have to think, sometimes very deeply. This is some of America, maybe your part in it. Or Maybe it will be. It might be part of your future and mine.

--The below was written before the ruling.--

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Congress, and the lower Courts, this country, without a shot being fired -- becomes a dictatorship. Similar in every way to the Evil Empire of the Soviet System, ruled by the "Party" , but in this case it is by the Congress, The Executive, and the Courts, all owned by multinational interests. As Walker says; if they rule for the lower courts; something is going to pop. Study this stuff. Go read it on article5.org and cc2.org as long as those sites are up. ----

NOTE: THE COURT RULED AGAINST "WE THE PEOPLE"
-------------------------------
The Constitution Of the United States
ARTICLE V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
------------------------------------
Do you think you understand Article V of the Constitution copied above?

Is not the true Contract with America its Constitution?

Can the courts change the meaning and application of the Constitution’s Article V? (NO. BUT THEY HAVE. ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN OVERRULE THE COURT. THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION IS THROUGH THE AMENDATORY PROCESS OUTLINED AND PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE V. NO OTHER METHOD IS DESCRIBED OR HAS BEEN RATIFIED.)

Is the Constitution, Constitutional? (NO. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE COURT SUSPENDED AND NULLIFIED THE CONSTITUION, AND ALL ITS PARTS. YOUR PROTECTED RIGHTS ARE NO LONGER PROTECTED.)

Does the Constitution still mean what it states?
(NOT ACCORDING TO THE COURT)

Is the wording too clear or is it too complex so that men can use it like Alberto Gonzales has been to be easily manipulated by Congress, by the Executive and by the Court?

When we read the Constitution, is the meaning we take from it REALLY what is meant, or can the meaning and supremacy of the Constitution be diminished? (NOT ACCORDING TO THE COURT. WHAT EVER INTEREST HAS THE MOST MONEY RULES -- YOU THINK I AM UNFAIRLY CHARACTERIZING THE COURT? READ THE CONSTITUTION AND SEE HOW MUCH OF IT YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND, THEN CONSIDER THAT IT I LIKELY NOT INTERPRETED THE WAY IT WAS MEANT.)

Can the meaning of what is clearly written within it be changed? Is this being done to prevent the voice of the people through their state representatives from being heard?

Should Congress call for the convening of a convention to propose amendments, as directed by the Constitution? Or does this Constitution have meaning and substance and power to control the government it created of, for, and by the people?

NOTE: Much effort is evidenced in the writ of certiorari, some of which is copied here from Bill Walker's www.article5.org page and website. See also www.cc2.org.

Walker v Members of Congress, et. al.(CERT DENIED!)

When the lawsuit above was presented to the Federal District Court, (as it must be, since that is where these things start in this judicial system) the Federal District Court, in a ruling by District Court Judge John Coughenour, asserted that the Congress has the “sole and exclusive power” to amend the Constitution. Earlier rulings intimated that no single person could directly propose amendments to the Constitution; that it had to be done representationally through an elected representative. That alone constrains the meaning of Article V, something that predates the Congress or the Court.

(Article V was placed in the constitution so that the people through their States could RECLAIM THEIR GOVERNMENT -- from the ones who have bought it and corrupted it. Article V was the insurance policy the States needed to even consider ratifying the federalist idea. The point is, Article five has existed longer than the office of President, the existence of the Court, and the existence of Congress. And now, it has been denied! )

According to Judge Coughenour, Article V of the United States as written in the Constitution, means nothing, was not even quoted, and yet it’s meaning was removed from consideration. It appears we have a real and certain Constitutional crisis brewing, which Congress can prevent with a call for the convention to propose amendments as directed by Article V in the Constitution.

Is The Constitution still the supreme fount of law for the United States, or have the corruptions allowed by it overpowered the Constitution and good judgment? Is it to be relegated, after some 200 years, to the document-trash-pile of history, or is still to be the wellspring of all Law, of all self-government in this nation? Or is it just another objection to be brushed aside by the all powerful self-serving centralized government?

Several Supreme Court cases have incidentally and indirectly referenced Article V and the Founding Fathers intentions, which intentions, predate the existence of Congress or the Supreme Court. In every instance dealing with Article V of the Constitution, The Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of the Constitution to direct the actions of the government the Constitution established.

From the Bill Walker’s Writ of Certiorari, I quote the relevant cases:

In Dodge v. Woolsey in 1855, 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.”

In Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920.) This stems from the Qhio citizens referendum to overturn the 18th amendment, (Prohibition,) but the principle is cited when the 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.”

In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921.) the Court reaffirmed its previous interpretations of Article V saying:

“An examination of Article V 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.”
Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921.)

As Walker points out, in reference to the decision of John Coughenour [of] the district Court:

– More importantly, however, the time line 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.

As to Coleman v. Miller 307 U.S. 433 (1939)

While the decision did state the amendatory process was the “exclusive” province of Congress, no where in the ruling was there any mention of the amendatory convention nor was the language of Article V even quoted. As the Court only referred to Congress and thus that portion of Article V dealing with congressional amendatory proposals, it maintained the principle of separation of powers, in this instance the amendatory convention being autonomous from congressional control. Otherwise the Court certainly would have such judicial an intent clear.

In citing Coleman, in Walker v. United States, which was then reaffirmed in Walker v. Members of Congress, Judge Coughenour placed the convention process of amendment under Congress’ exclusive control relying on that part of Coleman which states:

----“The Court here treats the amending process of the Constitution in some respects as subject to judicial construction, in others as subject to the final authority of the Congress. There is no disapproval of the conclusion arrived at in Dillon v. Gloss, that the Constitution impliedly requires that a properly submitted amendment must die unless ratified with a ‘reasonable time.’ Nor does the court now disapprove its prior assumption of power to make such a pronouncement. And it is not made clear that only Congress has constitutional power to determine if there is any such implication in Article V of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Court’s opinion declares that Congress has the exclusive power to decide the ‘political questions’ of whether a State whose legislature has once acted upon a proposed amendment may subsequently reverse its position, and whether, in the circumstances of such a case as this, an amendment is dead because an ‘unreasonable ‘time has elapsed. Such division between the political and judicial branches of the government is made by Article V which grants power over the amending of the Constitution to Congress alone. Undivided control of that process has been given by the article exclusively and completely to Congress. The process itself is ‘political’ in its entirety, from submission until an amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and is not subject to judicial guidance, control, or interference at any point.

Since Congress has sole and complete control over the amending process, subject to no judicial review, the views of any court upon this process cannot be binding upon Congress, and insofar as Dillon v. Gloss, supra, attempts judicially to impose a limitation upon the right of Congress to determine final adoption of any amendment, it should be disapproved. If Congressional determination that an amendment has been completed and become a part of the Constitution is final and removed from examination by the courts, as the Court’s present opinion recognizes, surely the steps leading to that condition must be subject to the scrutiny, control and appraisal of none save the Congress, the body having exclusive power to make that final determination.

Congress, possessing exclusive power over the amending process, cannot be bound by and is under no duty to accept the pronouncements upon the exclusive power by this court or by the Kansas courts. Neither State nor Federal courts can review that power. Therefore, any judicial expression amounting to more than mere acknowledgment of exclusive Congressional power over the political process of amendment is a mere admonition to the Congress in the nature of an advisory opinion, given wholly without constitutional authority.”

(Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939.) Using such words as “exclusive,” “completely” or “un-divided” to describe congressional control of the Article V amendatory process i.e., the method whereby an amendment becomes part of the Constitution, as opposed to an amendment proposal submitted by Congress subservient to that process, the Court, as interpreted by Judge Coughenour recognizes no exceptions, such as the peremptory authority of the convention process as expressed in Federalist 85, or the states’ role in that process. Until Coleman, Court rulings recognized two autonomous modes of amendment. (See above.) As interpreted by the district courts and appeals court, Coleman created a single mode, evidently intended to be the alpha and omega of national Government amendatory authority.

There is an obvious conflict between Federalist 85, representing the original intent of the Founders as to Congress’ role in the convention amendatory process, which is Congress shall have “no discretion” and Coleman, which is Congress shall have “exclusive power.” Coleman represents the “living tree” doctrine of constitutional law. Judge Coughenour faced the decision of which constitutional doctrine, “living tree,” or “original intent,” he should use to rule on the convention amendatory process. He chose “living tree.” His choice simultaneously endorsed unilateral control of the amendatory process by Congress and congressional veto of the meaning, intent, and written language of a clause of the Constitution as intended by the Founders.

As Coleman did not specifically address the convention amendatory process, Judge Coughenour was required to extend Coleman, i.e., legally determine the convention process was under congressional control. In Walker v. United States the Government referred to Coleman as an “analogous” decision rather than precedent. Clearly, even the Government required a court ruling in order for that doctrine to be extended. Therefore, to extend Coleman to include the convention process, Judge Coughenour obviously was required to rule on the central question of congressional obligation.

Moreover, several Court opinions favoring the convention amendatory process as autonomous of congressional dictate and obligating a call required nullification in order to prevent a convention call. (See ellipsis in Walker v. United States).

-----------------------Well, folks those in Power want to deprive the nation of any voice but that purchased by campaign contributors -- largely wealthy or corporate sponsors, in on the scam for a slice of your tax dollars. ----

My Comments: Coleman v Miller is viewed by all as a landmark case. I believe it is clearly flawed -- and in many places.

I hope the Supreme Court hears this appeal of Walker v. Members of Congress, et. al. and actually deals with the Constitutionality of the actions of the Congress. That has never been done. I have great “faith” in the wisdom and foresight of the founders that attempted to balance three branches against one another to lead to a workable scheme of representative self-government. The real trick was and still is to keep the built-in balance of conflict among the branches and keeping them subservient to the people, and the Constitution.

Chief Justice Roberts recently, September 28, 2006, wanted to stress judicial independence, I understand, and this also means putting some distance between the Court and the other branches.

If there is collusion, that is, everybody in on the take, we will have to see some higher court, the people exercising their judgement, their power. In what appears to be Roberts view, and others, The Courts are above the People, and to hear Roberts, above the Constitution. Judicial independence builds the abstract castle in the clouds and moves itself in. Then it is in a position to judge the Constitution? I wonder if his speech was prefatory to the upcoming case, since he recieved, as Clerk to Chief Justice Rhenquist, letters outlining the stance of Walker now presented.

It is very clear that no matter the differences between the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists 200 years ago – Article V was placed in the “plan,” The Constitution, and was agreed upon to be used to correct problems of the central government.

From all aspects, it looks like we, the people, through Bill Walker’s efforts and the responses of two levels of federal Court, now have an opportunity to reclaim some access to the government we live by. It will take mature consideration to determine which amendments should be proposed, and it will take time to assess and ratify them, but if the Constitution is followed, the corruption that has developed in our system can be corrected. But it will be necessary to remove the amendatory process from the corruption center in Washington for action. ----------------My Comments, Les Porter