Claiming a Veto over the Constitution
The Constitution is considered the supreme law of the U.S. because every other law, from jay-walking in Alabama, operating a tractor in Maine, disposing of paint in Oregon, to smoking marijuana in Colorado, is tied directly to its seven articles and twenty-seven amendments.
The Constitution is made up of two types of law: structural and civil. The civil law can be interpreted and debated for as long as the U.S. is around (which these days seems not for long with the way things are going). The structural law of the Constitution is not up for debate. You can either do something or you cannot, there is a procedure, it is followed. As we learn in our civics classes, the structural law of the U.S. Constitution is set in stone. Every Supreme Court Justice agrees on the structural law. If you ever get around to reviewing the seven articles you’ll find they’re quite clear and direct: there shall be a legislative branch, there shall be an executive branch, etc.
Last year on 60 Minutes, departing U.S. Senator Ernest Hollingsworth told Mike Wallace the legislation that members of Congress now sign off on is written by the lobbyists who pay for their campaigns. In other words, corruption has become institutionalized, and thus America will now never have proper and necessary legislation emerge. The framers knew people like Jack Abramov would come to pass, so they provided two ways to propose change for the nation. When one got gummed up with money, the other would kick in to clean it out. Both the two ways to propose change are concerned with one thing: an amendment. An amendment to he Constitution, whatever idea it carries, must first be ratified. Today it takes thirty-eight states to agree before we could ever have a 28th Amendment change anything.
A federal lawsuit titled Walker v. Members of Congress (06-244 U.S. Supreme Court) is newsworthy because it is concerned with Article V, the amendatory process, and the two different ways to propose change to the fifty states.
Walker comes down to this: The Constitution requires that 34 states must apply before a convention can be called. Just as there shall be three branches, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments once the state applications are received. This is the direct language of the supreme law which all elected officials and members of our U.S. Military swear an oath to uphold.
Going back to the years 1969, 1986, 1993, and 1999, when talk of a convention circulated, the traditional fear has been that it might tamper with the Constitution, or our freedoms and rights might be put in jeopardy. But these arguments are invalid since any proposed amendment needs 75% of the country to approve, which means any idea which is even slightly questionable has no chance - only those with broad and overwhelming support will be ratified. In other words, regardless of whether the idea is liberal or conservative, it has to be popular enough to get the approval of one entire side, plus at least half of the other. Basically, 75% sanctifies the popular will. That our country is so polarized and stricken with fear from corporate media, likely the only amendment to be ratified today is that of electoral reform. We need to gut the money machine surrounding our capitol.
If Congress fails to move to create true electoral reform, we ought to hold a national convention, so a delegate may propose such. The one and only thing which will come out of America’s first Article V Convention is a roster of ideas, and because Walker is the first suit in history, it shows it is now a constitutional requirement.
When Supreme Court decisions state emphatically and without any caveat that it is not the place of either courts or legislatures to alter the amendatory process, and when the case before them concerns that issue directly, then the U.S. must follow the law as written. In regards to Walker, the issue raised is that Congress by its actions is claiming a veto over a clause and provision of the Constitution, and can decide whether or not it will be carried out as instructed.
Alexander Hamilton, the author of Article V, along with countless others, makes clear: the clause is peremptory, and done without debate. Congress shall have no option in the matter. In short, the framers anticipated the political question doctrine almost 250 years ago and dealt with it directly. Thus a convention call is ministerial in duty, not discretionary. The requisite applications are in order, and there is no stricture on them whatsoever. The call was based o the simple numeric count for the obvious reason - in case things became corrupt and Congress ignored applications with one excuse or another. The applications are on the congressional record, so to be Anti-Conventionist today is to actually be Anti-Constitutionalist.
The direct language of the Supremacy Clause demands all judges take an oath to support the Constitution, and Marbury v. Madison states that either an action of the legislature is constitutional or it is not, and on that basis a judges must make decisions. Their oath prevents them from ruling in favor of an act which is unconstitutional and not supported by the text of the Constitution. Simply put, the refusal of Congress to issue the call when a sufficient number of applying states exists, is unconstitutional.
There is no immunity whatsoever for anyone who attempts to overthrow, by any means, even ignoring something on purpose, our constitutional form of government. We have two amendatory processes in place. One is controlled by Congress, the other is not, and Congress cannot veto the second process. It currently is doing so, and clearly and indisputably creating a single amendatory process where two exist.
Members of Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General will tell you how precious the Constitution is just about every chance they get - and they are right. The framers knew then what we know now, governments can become corrupt. Please send a letter to your congressional representatives and ask them about Walker, and please pass along the following link to Bill Walker’s site.
John De Herrera [send him email] is an activist, writer, and proponent of an Article V Constitutional Convention. Find more of John’s work at http://www.article5.org/ and http://www.cc2.org/