Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 2 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

About the Article 5 Convention and the US Constitution

By Bill Walker  Posted by erik larson (about the submitter)       (Page 5 of 8 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.     (# of views)   2 comments
Author 4965
Message erik larson


As the matter was submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States and I am sure your society is familiar with the rules of the Supreme Court. Allow me to quote you Rule 15.2 of the Supreme Court. 

"A brief in opposition should be stated briefly and in plain terms and may not exceed the page limitations specified in Rule 33. In addition to presenting other arguments for denying petition, the brief in opposition should address any perceived misstatement of fact or law in the petition that bears on what issues properly would be before the Court if certiorari were granted. Counsel are admonished that they have an obligation to the Court to point out in the brief in opposition, and not later, any perceived misstatement made in the petition." (Emphasis added). 


In my certiorari it was stated that Congress claimed the right to veto the text of the Constitution under the political question doctrine. The government did not refute it and the Solicitor General of the United States represented the government. Thus, under Supreme Court rules, the government now can veto the direct text of the Constitution. Notice I did not say neither here nor in my certiorari, the convention clause. I deliberately stated, the text of the Constitution. 


Finally, you should be aware that such a veto violates federal criminal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1918 that makes it a crime for a federal official to even “advocate” such position. I am sure you know the definition of the word “advocate” includes “stating publicly or in a tribunal.” You can read a copy of the law at Laws.htm 


You wanted a veto and now you have one. Understand this however. We are no longer discussing political theory of what might or might not occur. We are now dealing with FACT and official and formal government policy regarding their powers vis-à-vis the Constitution. The government now believes it has the power to veto the text of the Constitution and is on public record favoring this. Your society favors such a veto. I must congratulate you on your political victory sir though I suggest that destroying the entire Constitution by allowing the government to veto any of its clauses it chooses is a particularly dangerous way to obtain it. 


And by the way, another of our FOAVC members Chief Justice Brennan, former chief justice of the supreme court of Michigan is publishing an article describing the above in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy due out next month. The Journal, as I’m sure you know, is probably the highest regarded and therefore the most widely read in the entire legal community. This means every lawyer in the United States is going to know about this veto. 


Oh yes, and then there is Coleman. The text of my concern is too long for this already lengthy letter so I will simply give you the web address so that you can read exactly what the district court, appeals court, Congress and the Supreme Court now have in store for us. The site is: 


You mentioned in your letter regarding the age-old question of whether or not this nation is a democracy or a republic. Sir, right now, officially with the government having the right to veto the text of the Constitution, it is neither. It is a dictatorship.


Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8


Rate It | View Ratings

erik larson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Erik Larson, Human Being and concerned Citizen. I only advocate and practice non-violent methods of social and political activism & change. Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here by me in my articles and diaries are my own. I do my best to only (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact EditorContact Editor
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Sibel Edmonds vs. the Nuclear Terrorists

DOJ Confirms Previously-Denied File Said to Implicate US Officials in Nuclear Espionage by Erik Larson

Who's lying about 9/11? Review of Jon Gold's new book