“Peremptory. Imperative; final; decisive; absolute; conclusive; positive; not admitting of question, delay, reconsideration or of any alternative. Self-determined; arbitrary; not requiring any cause to be shown.”
I think you will have to agree the Founder’s intent was that Congress must call a convention and didn’t intend there be a veto by anyone (except that the states not apply in the first place which cannot apply now as all 50 states have submitted 567 applications to Congress for such a convention. The same logic applies when you cast your ballot in an election. You are not given a veto of the vote the next day.). Since you obviously hold the Federalist Papers as a conclusive source, I think you will have to agree your position is incorrect when placed before the full facts.
However, I did speak of a victory for you, didn’t I?
As you may or may not know, I have been involved in two federal lawsuits regarding a convention call for the past several years. The suits, Walker v United States and Walker v Members of Congress both dealt specifically with the issue of the convention call and the obligation of Congress to call it. If you desire a full examination of the issue, I refer you to www.article5.org/webbrief . Here you can study my nearly 800 page brief which used over 208 Supreme Court rulings to support the position the government was obligated to obey the Constitution and thus call and that the current laws and court rulings due to the equal protection clause of the Constitution would equally apply to the convention thus answering most, if not all, of the concerns and fears surrounding the calling of a convention. This brief was written for Walker v. United States, my first lawsuit which was only taken to district court but in which the court ruled that under the political question doctrine Congress had the right to veto the Constitution.
The last, Walker v. Members of Congress in which each member of Congress was individually served, made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States which denied certiorari but because of the absolute nature of the question and the opinions of the lower courts nevertheless made a decision in the suit. The reason is obvious: either Congress must obey the Constitution and call a convention or it has the right to veto the text (by whatever means it chooses) and refuse to call. Hence, if even a single court ever ruled that Congress could veto the text, that is refuse to call a convention when in fact the states had applied, then the right to veto the direct text of the Constitution by the government would be established. Well, as I have indicated, the district court in Walker v. United States did make a ruling and the district court in Walker v. Members of Congress repeated that portion of the ruling thus making it a subject of appeal.
By the way I should mention that early in this effort, when I was attempting to gain support from groups I hoped realized that if a veto of the text of the Constitution ever existed, it could tremendous damage, if not terminal damage to the Constitution by the obvious fact that the Constitution would have no effect whatsoever on a government if that government were allowed to veto that Constitution. I approached the John Birch Society at that time. Your group was not interested. Indeed it was then that I learned that your society was actively engaged in support of a veto. In fact, as far as I could determine, your society was at the head of the movement desiring that Congress possess a veto of the text of the Constitution.
As I mentioned, in Walker v Members of Congress, each member of Congress was individually served. Under federal law, (2 U.S.C. 118) each member of Congress therefore was required to agree to the lawsuit by requesting representation by the United States through the justice department and therefore publicly assert and argue, that is to say, advocate for the right to veto the text of the Constitution. (As all of the members of Congress did this, and I have the written declaration of the attorney representing the government at appeal level as proof, I think I can safely say that your suggestion of acquiring 218 members of the House in support of your points has suffered a setback.)
Allow me to quote the law, which states:
“In any action brought against any person for or on account of anything done by him while an officer of either House of Congress in the discharge of his official duty, in executing any order of such House, the United States attorney for the district within which the action is brought, on being thereto requested by the officer sued, shall enter an appearance in behalf of such officer; and all provisions of the eighth section of the Act of July 28, 1866, entitled “An Act to protect the revenue, and for other purposes”, and also all provisions of the sections of former Acts therein referred to, so far as the same relate to the removal of suits, the withholding of executions, and the paying of judgments against revenue or other officers of the United States, shall become applicable to such action and to all proceedings and matters whatsoever connected therewith, and the defense of such action shall thenceforth be conducted under the supervision and direction of the Attorney General.” (Emphasis added).