Call an Article V Convention

Congress Refuses To Call a Convention to Amend
By: Daniel Marks Saturday February 18, 2012 4:32 pm

The following is quoted from material sent to A.G. Eric Holder of the Dept. of Justice as a criminal complaint against the Congressmen/women for not abiding by Article 5 of the US Constitution and summoning a convention to amend the Constitution as 49 of States have applied for hundreds of times throughout our history.

———————

January 12, 2012

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

Dear Sir:

I wish to bring to your attention a matter of flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States by officials of the United States Government. The specific issue I refer to is the refusal of the members of the Congress of the United States to call an Article V Convention as required by that document. I am including reference material with this letter for your convenience to which I will refer through this letter. I am requesting your office begin an immediate criminal investigation as to violation of oath of office by members of Congress in this regard.

The key point in this matter is contained in Article V of the Constitution which states [in part] “…on the application of two thirds of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which… shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution…[when ratified as further described in Article V].” Scholars, historians and, more importantly, the Supreme Court, as well as statements made in open court by the Government itself all agree on a fundamental point: the call is peremptory meaning under no circumstances can Congress refuse to call the convention once the states have applied.

Simple reference to the United States Senate’s own annotated reference is one of hundreds of references. This reference states, “The Constitution also authorizes a national convention, when two-thirds of the states petition Congress for such a convention….” In the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress, the Solicitor General of the United States acknowledged that a convention call was “peremptory” and that a sufficient number of applications from the states have been submitted to cause Congress to call a convention. These facts, therefore, are irrefutable as they are all a matter of public record.

Equally, a matter of public record is the refusal of Congress to obey the Constitution. Their collective oaths of office are explicit. They shall have no “mental reservations” as to obedience to the Constitution, which, as I am sure you are aware, means they must obey the Constitution as written, without hesitation or evasion. Yet, the fact remains the members of Congress have not done so.

There is no question as to their criminal culpability in this matter. Congress has never even gathered the state applications into a single reference source so that tabulation of them can occur. When called upon by members of the public and more importantly in two federal lawsuits, the members of Congressunanimously publicly opposed obeying the Constitution and calling an Article V Convention. This again, despite four separate unanimous Supreme Court decisions all decreeing Congress must call a convention if the states so apply.

Upon learning of the above facts, I made efforts to report the violation of oath of office to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. As the enclosed letters indicate, federal officials ignored my efforts and requests. The Senate Committee on Ethics refused to take any action; stating refusal to obey the Constitution was “within the prerogative of each member to determine.” A Ms. Donna Hayes of the House Committee on Ethics verbally informed me the committee was not interested in pursuing this matter. This, in spite of the fact the House Ethics Manual clearly specifies that all House members, “Uphold the Constitution… of the United States and …never be a party to…[its] evasion.” As to the FBI, for the record, my name is John Guise, not FBI agent Steven E. Ibison. I believe this error alone demonstrates the level of seriousness and depth of investigation taken by FBI agent Sandra A. Bungo.

In other words, the individuals named in these letters or whom I have contacted made deliberate decisions. This includes formal decisions on the part of members of Congress. Please note the letter from the Senate refers to a decision by “the Committee.” All are federal officials sworn by oath of office to obey and support the Constitution of the United States. Instead, they, through their actions, aided and abetted Congress in its violation of oath of office. No other conclusion is possible given the present evidence.

Simply put, members of the FBI do not have statutory authority to refuse to notify your office of a violation of federal law by fe...