CONGRESSIONAL
Violation of Oath of Office
and
Walker v Members of Congress
TIME TO REMOVE THESE ILLEGAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
In refusing
to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when
required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal
income tax law but their oath of office
as well. The
Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of
office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply
with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce
this constitutional requirement.
Federal law regulating oath of
office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an
executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual
oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress
sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate
that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part
of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly
makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for
anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress)
to �advocate the overthrow of our constitutional
form of government�. The fourth federal law, 18
U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from
office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of �advocate� is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the
purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C.
7311. One provision of Executive
Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5
U.S.C. 7311� for any person taking
the oath of office to advocate �the alteration ...
of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.�
Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It
can only be �altered� by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government
officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of
government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
Congress has never altered the
Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original
language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact.
That law specifies a convention call is peremptory
on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the
word �shall� to state this. The
states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the
Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have
asserted a veto power when none exists nor was
ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our
government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the
Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation
of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.
In addition, the members of
Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office
regarding an Article V Convention call. 5
U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of
Congress to advocate the overthrow of our
constitutional form of government. The definition of the word �advocate� is to: �defend by argument before a tribunal
or the public: support or recommend publicly.�
The single intent of the federal
lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress
to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered
by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has
refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes
the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by
establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the
Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.
A Quick Summation Of
The Walker Lawsuits
A summation absent any references of the two Walker
lawsuits, Walker v. United States and Walker v. Members of Congress is as
follows:
A federal district court in Seattle ruled in Walker v. United
States (2000) that the Congress could disobey the law of the Constitution under
the political question doctrine. The district court ruled the plaintiff had no
standing to sue and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to issue a ruling
in the suit. Nevertheless court issued its political question doctrine ruling,
which had never been issued by any court previously regarding the convention
call based on an advisory opinion issued by the Supreme Court. Advisory
opinions have no force or weight of law. This advisory opinion also stated that
any decisions based on its recommendations would also be advisory. Thus, the
original intent of the Constitution, that Congress was peremptorily required to
call a convention, remain untouched.
In Walker v. Members of Congress (2004), the members of
Congress voluntarily and deliberately joined a federal lawsuit to oppose
obeying the law of the Constitution. The attorney of record provided written
proof in open public court that as a matter of public record that each member
of Congress individually made this decision. It is against federal criminal law
for any member of Congress to join a federal lawsuit to advocate such action or
to advocate such a position.
The attorneys of record for the members of Congress based
their actions in the Walker v. Members of Congress lawsuit on an advisory
opinion issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court, in that
advisory opinion, stated that decision, and any subsequent decisions related to
the amendatory process, was given �wholly without constitutional authority�
meaning the advisory opinion on which the attorneys of record based their
actions had no force or weight of law whatsoever thus leaving the peremptory
original intent of the Constitution intact.
As a result of these actions by the member of Congress�
attorney of record, federal law required the Attorney General of the United
States write for the public record, a report to Congress explaining the reasons
why the law of the Constitution can be disobeyed by members of Congress, who made
this decision and when it was made. The public report, by law, was required to
be submitted to Congress before final arguments in the appeal process of
Walker v. Members of Congress were concluded thus giving their attorneys the
opportunity to �change their mind� if so instructed by their clients, the
members of Congress. The members did not so instruct their attorney of record.
Walker v. Members of Congress was appealed to the Supreme
Court. Federal law requires that all facts and law submitted in writs of
certiorari by the plaintiff (appellant) to the Supreme Court must either be (1)
waived, meaning the defendant (appellee) in the lawsuit admits as a matter of
fact and law that the statements made by the plaintiff are true and correct or
(2) opposed, in which case federal law requires the defendant give the reasons
why the alleged facts and law are not true and correct.
The attorney of record for the members of Congress, the
Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity, waived
challenging the facts and law presented by the plaintiff in the Walker v.
Members of Congress writ of certiorari. The writ of certiorari is public
record. The members of Congress (acting through their attorney of record)
therefore admitted in open court for the public record that the following is
true and correct as a matter of fact and law:
(1)
that under Article V of the United States Constitution,
Congress is required to call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the state
legislatures apply for one;
(3)
that all 50 states have submitted 567 applications for such a
convention;
(4)
that an Article V Convention call is peremptory on Congress;
(5)
that the political
subject matter of an amendment application is irrelevant and does not effect
Congress� obligation to call an Article V Convention;
(6)
that the refusal of
the members of Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and immediately
call a convention is a violation of their oath of office as well as a violation
of federal criminal law and;
(7)
that by joining a lawsuit to advocate in open public court
they can ignore, veto, disobey or otherwise thwart a convention call, the
members of Congress violated federal criminal law.
�
SO IT IS TIME NOW TO MARCH ON WASHINGTON AND REMOVE EVERY ILLEGAL MEMBER OF CONGRESS. THEY ARE NOT THE MASTERS OF THE COUNTRY. WE ARE!
