-->

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Sibley v. Congress IV -- Heading towards a decision

After a month and a half of litigation noise, the first lap of my Article V lawsuit is heading down the home stretch.  After the case  was removed from D.C. Superior Court, I moved to remand it back.  Defendants' McConnell & Boehner objected to my motion to remand.  I replied to their objection.

Meanwhile, Defendants McConnell & Boehner moved to dismiss the case arguing (i) that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, (ii) the Speech or Debate Clause prohibited the Court from getting involved and (iii) my suit presents a non-justiciable political question.  I have filed my Opposition to that Motion to Dismiss.

I also sought the Court's permission to convert my lawsuit to a Class Action naming 100 Senators and 435 Representatives as Defendants.  Might as well make sure everyone comes to the party.

So, as we say in the legal world,  the issues are joined so that Court can now move forward and decide.  I will spare you the technical legal argument raised by McConnell & Boehner and leave you with Federalist No.: 85 by Alexander Hamilton:
It is this: that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. . . .  We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority. (Emphasis added).
Now we wait and see what the good Judge Boasberg has to say to all this. 

1 comments:

Christopher A. Brown said...

It is my impression that courts consider that only states have standing regarding complaint against congress, because only states are named as party to assembling to apply for Article V.

This, despite the precedent you've cited in your opposition to the motion to dismiss, appears the position the courts must be taking, without saying do. Saying such would give rise to a proper movement in states as I describe.

Accordingly Americans must assemble under the absolutes of constitutional intent as the framers defined in various ways with the three framing documents, and impose agreement upon those intents upon state legislators by mass petition claiming they are deprived of the right to alter or abolish if state legislators cannot agree with and accept the prime intentions.

Remedy to the claim can only be impeachment of the targeted legislators because they are owned by corporations operating in the states.

Prime constitutional intent Americans can reasonably expect to see engaged is; the right to alter or abolish and the right to see the purpose of free speech serve to create the unity adequate to move states in the number if 3/4 of them, to conduct conventions proposing and ratifying amendments while presenting opportunity to the other states to participate.
christopheralfredbrown@gmail.com

Post a Comment

Play nice!