Chapter Fourteen

November 15, 2017

To find a form that accommodates the mess, 

That is the task of the artist now. 

Samuel Beckett

The Committee of the Whole, sensing the need to finish before Christmas finally finished their debates, lobbying and wood-shedding and was ready to vote. And vote they did, by a solid majority sending all of the Proposed Amendments to Congress who had the responsibility to send those Proposed Amendments on to the States. Along with the transmittal of the Amendments, Congress was obligated to designate the method of ratification, either by the respective state legislatures or by state convention called for that purpose.

It was then with real relief that Blair took the podium for the last time. “Is there any further business? Hearing no response, I am then, with real pleasure, prepared to adjourn permanently this, the First Convention to Propose Amendments. But two final matters remain. I have asked Rabbi Joseph Black to give a closing prayer. Rabbi?”

Rabbi Joseph Black took the microphone and began: “Our God and God of All creation: God who inspires fear and God who comforts. God who can be found in the rubble of the quake and in the marches for justice in the streets. All around us we confront the debris of existence. We, who try to infuse order into the disarray of daily life, understand all too well that, at any moment, the calm we take for granted can be plunged into chaos without warning – whether by natural disaster or pent-up anger and frustration. In this sacred chamber, the tasks of governance seem both insignificant and indispensable at the same time. When we try to assess our actions in light of the challenges that face us, our attempts to create change can seem insignificant. And yet, our refusal to succumb to a cynicism bred from hubris is a defining characteristic of the divinity You have implanted within us all. As this Convention draws to a close, we look back at the months that have passed with mixed emotions. Thank you, God for the ability to shine a light on the goodness of humankind – even when we face adversity. Thank You for reasons to rise above the petty and the political to make a difference. Thank you for these leaders who share their passion for representing their communities. May the recess that awaits them bring rest, renewal and a re-ignited hope for all that is good. Amen.”

“Thank you Rabbi.” Blair said. “As was the tradition at the conclusion of the Convention of 1787, where, as George Washington noted in his diary, ‘the members adjourned to the City Tavern, dined together and took a cordial leave of each other’, I am pleased to announce that the government of the District of Columbia has prepared a dinner for us at City Hall, and I invite you to join Rachel and me there so that we may thereafter report that we dined together and took cordial leave of each other. That said, this Convention is adjourned, sine die.”

Blair dropped his gavel one last time.

***

“Blair”, Rachel said, “In all the months we have been here, did you ever take the walk up to the upper ramparts and see the Great Hall from there? It is quite a view.”

“No, I didn’t know you could get up there.”

“Well you can, if you know the secret passage way, which I do. Follow me.” Rachel led Blair to the second floor and to a door which opened to a staircase leading up. Taking the stairs up, Rachel led Blair to the ramparts from where, looking down, he could see the Great Hall below:

“Rachel, this is a great view. It is odd to see the Hall empty below, just the chairs and desks testifying to the debates held here over the last months.”

Rachel called from around the corner. “Come see the view from here”, she said.

As Blair rounded the corner he saw Rachel unbuttoning the buttons on her blouse.

“You always said, ‘Women need a reason, Men need a place.’ Well, now that our professional relationship is at an end, I have a reason and we have a fitting place, don’t you think?”

The End

Read More...

Summary only...

A New Social Network

For the past few weeks I have been working on a project that diverges significantly from my prior efforts.  That project is a new type of Social Network platform found at Alt19.co (not ".com").

Today, I am launching this Social Network.  The target audience is those who find the censorship which is rampant in the exisiting social media platforms unacceptable in a society of free speech. 

Notably, Twitter, Facebook and Reddit among others have all decided they have the "right" to determine what can be said and what cannot be according to their "moral" code.

I believe just the opposite.  That a free society can only grow as a result of enduring the "free speech" of idiots, trolls and the like as the alternative is an enforced-from-above idealogy that can only trend towards tyranny of thought, word and then deed.

That is why Alt19.co is a private, uncensored social network. Say what you like.  Our "Privacy Policy" is that we have no "Privacy Policy".  The site will be unmoderated and a post will not be removed because it offends someone.  If you don't like what you are reading, leave.

There are too many serious issues facing the Republic to not have a public space to discuss those issues without fear of censorship.  My hope is that Alt19.co will serve that end.  I invite you to explore Alt19.co and join the unmoderated discussion of the issues that are important to you.

Read More...

Summary only...

Update: Sibley v. McConnell & Ryan . .

Now the legal issues are joined and it is time to wait for the machinery of justice to grind-out it's decision.

In the D.C. Superior Court, Senator McConnell has filed his Motion to Dismiss raising the technical legal issues of (i) Article III "standing", (ii) the Speech or Debate clause affirmative defense and (iii) the Political Question Doctrine affirmative defense.  I have filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.  This case has been stayed until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal decides the appeal from the D.C. District Court, which may take six months or more.  Hence, I don't expect much movement in the D.C. Superior Court until next summer!

Likewise, in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, I have filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance of the Remand Order to the D.C. Superior Court. Speaker Ryan has filed an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Affirmance.  I have now filed my Reply to that Opposition.  Again, tick-tock, we wait . . .

As an aside, in the 21st Century, it seems stupid that justice takes so long to resolve issues.  Who does this benefit but the status quo?

Read More...

Summary only...

Great Minds Think Alike

Last week, on a very rainy day, I marched down to Washington, D.C. to hand-deliver letters to Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan.  Their attorneys had claimed that neither of them had received the letter I sent their respective offices in March 2015. As my litigation progresses against these two Congressmen, I wanted to make sure they could not claim they never knew about my demand that they are obligated to call an Article V Convention to Propose Amendments.

In the Letter I hand-delivered, I posed a question that you might find interesting:  What do Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, George Soros, Alliance for Democracy, Center for Media and Democracy, Code Pink, Independent Progressive Politics Network, Progressive Democrats of America and the Sierra Club all agree upon? They all think it is time for a Convention to Propose Amendments as contemplated by Article V.  

Imagine that!

Read More...

Summary only...

I know I can! I know I can!

Because I am the little litigation engine that could (and, unlike most, would), I must: An update on my litigation efforts:

First, in my Article V litigation against Speaker Ryan (Boehner resigned recently) and Senator McConnell, the case was remanded back to D.C. Superior Court by the U.S. District Court. Not surprisingly, Speaker Ryan has now appealed that remand to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  I have promptly moved for Summary Affirmance of the Remand Order.  In the scheme of things, this appeal will probably delay the progression of this Article V case to a decision on the merits by six (6) months or more.

Second, in my litigation against the Foreperson of the Grand Jury for Montgomery County Maryland, the State Attorney has filed their Answer Brief and I have now filed my Reply Brief.   In sum, the State Attorney argues that they should be the unaccountable gatekeeper to the Grand Jury.  I argue the opposite.  We will see if the common law prevails or the march of executive/judicial tyranny continues unabated.

Additionally, I have put in three Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth and juxtaposed them against the COLB of Mr. Obama. If the Court wants to act like ostriches and ignore the glaring anomalies in Mr. Obama's COLB, there is nothing more I can do.

Oral argument is set for the first week in February 2016, so nothing much will happen until then.

Read More...

Summary only...

If it wasn't tragic, it would be funny . . .

In my Article V lawsuit against Congress, I have been emailing each member of Congress notice of the lawsuit now that it is pending in the District of Columbia Superior Court. A number of Congressional staff members have written back to me about the lawsuit and my discussions with the staffs of those Members is ongoing.

However, today I received a letter from the Attorney for the House of Representatives which is the funniest thing I have ever read.  In that letter, counsel for the House of Representatives states:

 "This Office represents House Members and staff in connection with their official activities; accordingly, to the extent you wish to communicate with any House Member or staff regarding your lawsuit, please do so through this Office. Please do not communicate directly with any House Member or staff regarding this lawsuit."  

Is an employee of Congress seeking to prevent me from petitioning members of Congress? Seriously? Perhaps its time to review the First Amendment.

Read More...

Summary only...

Back Where I Started

Five months after  the Honorable Mitch McConnell and the Honorable John Boehner removed my case against them to federal district court, the federal judge has issued his Order granting my Motion to Remand the case back to the D.C. Superior Court.

Admitting I was correct in each and every argument I raised in support of the remand apparently annoyed the good Judge James E. Boasberg so much he felt compelled to spend a good deal of the order hurling ad hominem arguments towards me.  Also, his obiter dicta regarding the issues surrounding the Article V convention are not only unnecessary, but for a federal judge to fail to understand the mechanics of Article V is embarrassing.  In particular, Judge Boasberg writes in his order of remand: "Nor need they be, according to pro se Plaintiff Montgomery Blair Sibley. For, he says, thirty-five states – more than the two-thirds required by Article V – have already voiced their support for a constitutional convention . . ."

Yet this is simply wrong.  The 35 states have not called for a "constitutional convention" but instead only what they are allowed to "call" for under Article V:  A convention to propose amendments.  Seriously, a federal judge not understanding the constitution?

That all said, now the battle returns to D.C. Superior Court where the playing field is a bit more level than in the federal court.

More as it happens.

Read More...

Summary only...

I act, then I speak . . .

I have acted on the failure of Congress 
to call a convention to propose amendments, 
so now I guess I can speak (for 14 minutes):

Read More...

Summary only...

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. 

Read More...

Summary only...

Sibley v. Congress III: Monkey see, Monkey do

Thomas Henry Huxley has been quoted as saying that if you left a hundred monkeys pounding on a hundred typewriters for a hundred years eventually one of them would type out a Shakespearean sonnet.

Maybe I am that Monkey.  For you see, I have been pounding on my "typewriter" for what seems like a hundred years seeking to get the judicial system to do its duty.  Now, I might have typed out the legal equivalent of a Shakespearean sonnet.

In my litigation regarding the present-duty of Congress to "call" a Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, Senator McConnell has "removed" the case from D.C. Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  His reason, I believe, is that District Court Judges are famously pro-government.  I am seeking to "remand" the case back to D.C. Superior Court which I believe would allow a fairer venue in my opinion to address the issues raised in my lawsuit.  Indeed, I might even get an advisory jury, something that one seldom sees in federal court.

To accomplish that, on May 22, I filed my Motion to Remand arguing that the federal court did not have "subject matter jurisdiction" over my Article V claims.  Accordingly, I argue, that without subject-matter jurisdiction the case must be remanded back to D.C. Superior Court.

This puts Judge James E. “Jeb” Boasberg on the horns of a dilemma.  For my Complaint only alleges that I possess the general right of every Citizen: “to require that the Government be administered according to law. . . .”.  Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922).  However, an appalling line of cases tracing back to  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561(1992) have held that in order for a U.S. District Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must have "standing" which means that I would have to have suffered an injury in fact which is concrete and particularized -- something I did not suffer in this instance. My "suffering" is the same as yours -- a Congress which is a law unto itself, ignores the mandates of the  Constitution and listens only to those who pay for their attention.

So here is the dilemma for the good Judge Boasberg.  Follow the controlling law and remand the case to D.C. Superior Court and thereby confirm that as U.S. Citizens we no longer have the right: “to require that the Government be administered according to law. . . .”   That would be one hell of an admission of the erosion of the social compact which is the U.S. Constitution to that of an aspirational document only.

Or, Judge Boasberg can keep the case by refusing the remand and break with the last 23 years of legal cases which have served to disenfranchise our First Amendment right to petition.  But then, he would have to address the merits of my claims.

It will be an interesting decision in either event.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sibley v. Congress II

Regarding my lawsuit against Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner, I have now perfected service of process on both Gentleman and thus the lawsuit can move forward. That lawsuit seeks to challenge the refusal of Congress to call an Article V Convention to Propose Amendments despite 35+ states having applied for the calling of such a convention.

Senator McConnell promptly removed the case from D.C. Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

I will in due course be contesting that removal.

Read More...

Summary only...

Montgomery Blair Sibley vs. Congress

As repeatedly documented in this Blog, I have filed suit against the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch many times.  Predictably, none of those suits were determined upon the merits but instead my claims were avoided from being determined on the merits by the courts ruling that I did not have “standing” to challenge the allegedly illegal actions of government officials.

Now I am fully aware of the adage attributed to Albert Einstein that Insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Nonetheless, believing I should leave no stone unturned, yesterday I sued the U.S. Congress through their representatives: the Honorable Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.  The suit is framed as a logical syllogism:

U.S. Citizens have a general right: “to require that the Government be administered according to law. . . .”. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922)

The “Law” found at Article V of the Constitution states in pertinent part: “The Congress . . . on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, . . ” 

“Two thirds of the several States” equals 34 states (50 states*.66%= 34)

To date, as detailed in the Complaint, thirty-five (35) states have made "application” for a Convention to Propose Amendments but Congress has refused to make the “call”.

Therefore, insomuch as Congress is not “administering” the government according to law, the Court is obligated to order Congress to do its duty and make the “call” for such a Convention.

The Defendants the Honorable Mitch McConnell and the Honorable John A. Boehner have twenty (20) days to respond to this lawsuit which I served upon them today.

Read More...

Summary only...

My Demand that Congress Call an Article V Convention to Propose Amendments

I have launched the first barrage in the final battle of my crusade to recover the federal government from its overreaching of the Constitutional limitations put upon it.  As I have written extensively elsewhere, the Executive Branch is unaccountable to the People, the Legislative Branch belongs to the monied interests and the Judiciary has decided that it can act as a super legislature, tenured for life and enjoying absolute immunity for its misdeeds.

Thus, I believe what is left is the saving grace of the Article V absolute right for the States to call a Convention to Propose Amendments to re-align the balance of power between the federal government, the states and the People.  As I detail in my letter to the Honorable Mitch McConnell and the Honorable John A. Boehner, that right has now been exercised by thirty-five (35) states, hence it is time for Congress to act and call such a convention.  If they don't, then the Supreme Court will have the matter and if that body declares that this right too has been lost, then, I believe -- and hope -- that all Hell will break loose.

Read More...

Summary only...

A vote away from a Convention to Propose Amendments

Among the seventeen States which have not yet called for a Convention to Propose Amendments, is Virginia.  Notably, the Richmond Times-Dispatch recently reported that: "The [Virginia] House Committee on Rules on Tuesday passed House Joint Resolution 497, sponsored by Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William, calling for a convention of the states to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

If that Joint Resolution passes both the Virginia Senate and the House, the magic number of "34" will be reached and Congress could be forced by Mandamus from the Supreme Court to discharge their ministerial duty to call such a Convention.

If that comes to pass, I think it rich that Virginia's state moto is:  Sic Semper Tyrannis ("Thus Always to Tyrants").

Read More...

Summary only...

The straw that broke the Camel's back

As I wrote in a previous post, thirty-three (33) of the thirty-four (34) states needed to "call" a Convention to Propose Amendments under Article V have made such a "call".  I have compiled the list of those states and the citations to the Congressional Record where each such "call" is recorded.

This means of course if only one (1) more state makes such a call, Congress would be compelled -- and the Supreme Court could be properly petitioned under its original jurisdiction to order Congress to -- call such a Convention.

Thus it was with real delight that I received a telephone call in response to my Black Caucus letter from one of the seventeen (17) states holding the power to make the "call".

The conversation I had with this person covered the technical issues of how a state makes a Congressional "call", the wisdom and value of so doing and ended with me stating what I fatuously have named "Sibley's Law":  If you can do something positive, you should; if you are the only one who can do something positive, you must."

It was now out of my hands . . . and into  someone else's.

Read More...

Summary only...

Article V Convention and Fear-Morngering

The fear-mongering about an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution is now underway.  In an unsigned article, the anonymous author headlines the piece: “A constitutional convention could be the single most dangerous way to 'fix' American government.”  The article deliberately uses false statements and incendiary language to the end of attempting to arouse public fear or alarm about an Article V Convention.  Shades of the infamous Daisy television commercial.

For example, as to false statements: “Conventioneers could alter absolutely anything about the way the United States is governed.”  This, or course, is patently false.  At best, if a majority of the states attending such an Article V Convention voted to proposed an amendment, that amendment would then have to be circulated to the 50 states and would only become the law of the land if 3/4s of those states approved it. Accordingly, the “Conventioneers” could “alter” absolutely nothing.

As for incendiary language, the article states: “ At stake, potentially, are the freedoms we take for granted under the Bill of Rights; the powers of the president, Congress and the courts; and the policies the government can or cannot pursue.” Well, yeah . . . that is the right of the governed to control how they are governed.  Is the unknown author of this piece proposing the alternative? That the governing elite determine the limits of their power?

As for the most inane argument against an Article V Convention, the article quotes notable Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe as stating that such a Convention would be: "putting the whole Constitution up for grabs." Exactly what the Founding Father's intended when they enacted Article V!

Simply put, what is being stated here is that those in power fear a change in the status quo so completely that they would de facto amend the Constitution to prevent any amendment to the Constitution which would change the present power structure by scaring the public from calling such a Convention.

A more chilling position could not be articulated by any government official.

Read More...

Summary only...

Radio is still alive and well . . .

Little did I know -- or even suspect -- that my brief, twenty-two (22) minute interview on the Peter Boyles' KNUS radio show out of Denver, Colorado, on December 18, 2014, would animate just the right people to take unrelated steps which produced -- what would appear in hindsight -- to be a coordinated effort.  Peter had invited me on to talk about the Elizabeth Duke case and in the last two minutes the topic of an Article V Convention came up and how at present 33 of the 34 states needed to call such a Convention had in fact made the call.  Here is the interview:

Read More...

Summary only...

Seventeen

Michael Stokes Paulsen, an eminent Law Professor has concluded: "The bottom line: Thirty-three states are currently in a condition of validly applying for a "general" Article V convention--just one state short of the total needed to trigger Congress's obligation to call such a convention."  How to Count to Thirty-four: the Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention

Upon this fine, un-impeachable, legal research and analysis the stage was set.  It would take only one of the 17 states which had yet to call for a Constitutional Convention to call for one and the die would be cast, the issue framed, and the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to be invoked to decide whether Article V had a life or not.  Simply put,  is the exact mechanism the Constitution contemplates for constitutional change no longer a viable way for the People to control their government?  To force the Supremes to decide that issue would lay bare the fraud our democracy has become for all to see.

Thus, the telephone call I received from the Black Caucus in one of those 17 States in late December set in motion a series of events which would touch the civic life of each resident of the United States.

Read More...

Summary only...

Staws upon the Camel's Back

There are others besides myself who believed it was time to convene a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.  Witness the recent New York Times article: Clamor Rises to Rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, the powers-that-be -- which include the New York Times -- were fearful of what such a convention might wrought.  That is to say that the powers-that-be were fearful of what the People, lawfully assembled as envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- might decide is in their best interest at such a convention.  No more anti-democratic sentiment can be espoused.

Significantly, the New York Times perpetuates the myth that such a convention would "amend" the Constitution stating: "Rising frustration with Washington and conservative electoral victories across much of the United States are feeding a movement in favor of something America hasn’t done in 227 years: Hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution."  This of course is simply wrong.  The convention would not "rewrite the Constitution" but instead could only propose amendments to the Constitution which would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Hardly a recipe for radical changes to a document that has served well so many for so long.

Perhaps the best argument for such a Convention is grounded in who opposes it:  Justice Antonin
Scalia, the longtime leader of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc, who observed this summer: “Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”

My answer, Justice Scalia, is the "Wisdom of the Crowd" which is exactly what happened.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dred Scott, NBCSL & Me

The mess in Ferguson, Missouri put off my meeting with a representative of the NBCSL last week as their focus was obviously on the unfortunate events in that city.  However, I was able to speak by telephone with a low-level member of their staff about my letter.  I can’t say that my proposal to have the NBCSL spearhead a campaign to call an Article V convention was well received, but on the other hand, it wasn’t rejected either.

What I said to her was this: 

My great, great grandfather, Montgomery Blair, received a letter on July 4, 1854, from Dred Scott which concluded: 

I have no money to pay anybody at Washington to speak for me.  My fellow-men, can any of you help me in my day of trial?  Will nobody speak for me at Washington, even without hope of other reward than the blessings of a poor black man and his family? I do not know. I can only pray that some good heart will be moved by pity to do that for me which I cannot do for myself; and that if the right is on my side, it may be so declared by the high court to which I have appealed.

By December 30, 1854, when the Supreme Court docketed Dred Scott v. Sandford, no attorney had stepped forward.  Yet Montgomery Blair agreed to take up the case so unpopular that no attorney in D.C. was willing to take it and thereby risk his legal career.  For doing that which others would not, President Buchanan fired Montgomery Blair from his position as Solicitor General causing him great financial hardship.  During the Civil War, his home in present-day Silver Spring, Maryland was burned to the ground by Confederate troops in retaliation for his representation of Dred Scott.  On October 12, 1864, upon the death of Chief Justice Taney, Lincoln had a chance to re-pay Montgomery Blair for his loyalty and fine service as Post Master General. However, bowing to pressures from the Radical Republicans who hated Blair on account of his representation of Dred Scott, Lincoln appointed Salmon Chase as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court instead thereby denying Blair the position he so longed for and richly deserved. 

Why the brief history lesson?  Simply put, I am now a "slave" in so much as I am a resident of the District of Columbia who has no vote in Congress. Despite the fine thirteen year effort of D.C. Vote and other individuals and organizations to obtain voting rights for District residents, Congress has refused to extend this basic civil right to me and the 600,000 other tax-paying residents of the District.  Each year a few self-appointed Congressmen take it upon themselves to determine the great issues of the day – abortion, needle exchanges, legalizing marijuana – by fiat rather than allow the residents of the District to determine these matters for themselves as residents of other states do.

Hence, to echo Dred Scott's words to my great, great, grandfather to you: "I can only pray that some good heart will be moved by pity to do that for me which I cannot do for myself."  And what is that which NBCSL can "do" that "I cannot do for myself"? 

Call a Constitutional Convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution to fully enfranchise me and my fellow District of Columbia residents.  Such a call by thirty-four (34) state legislatures would obligate Congress to call such a convention.  I believe the NBCSL is uniquely situated to organize resolutions in the necessary State Legislatures calling for such a Convention. Plainly, who – when faced with that choice – would oppose such a resolution designed to enfranchise the residents of the District? 

I was aware that the staff person was taking copious notes and was somewhat stunned by what I had to say.  I ended by again requesting that I be allowed to raise and expand upon the wisdom and merit of my proposal at the December 10-13, 2014 NBCSL’s 38th Annual Legislative Conference Dallas, TX.  She promised to pass my message along.

What happened next proved that the Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways . . .

Read More...

Summary only...