November 29, 2005

Member of Congress Lois Capps Breaks Silence on PTTP Lawsuit

Congresswoman Refuses to Repudiate Veto of Constitution by Congress,

Clarify Congress' Position or Deny Congress Has Committed Criminal Acts

Despite repeated inquires from PTTP, members of Congress have remained silent regarding Walker v. Members of Congress. In sum, the lawsuit demands that Congress call an Amendatory Convention authorized under Article V of the United States Constitution. The suit accuses the members of violation of numerous federal criminal laws including overthrowing the Constitution, extortion, violation of oath of office, civil rights violations and voting rights violations.

Finally, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Democrat from the 23rd District, California did respond in a letter written to John De Herrera of PTTP California. While the letter is welcomed in that PTTP has always looked forward to providing a forum for members of Congress to express their side of the issue, the fact is Ms. Capps misstated the facts of the lawsuit in her letter. She accused PTTP of attempting to call a "constitutional convention". She also stated "the plaintiff claims" that all fifty states have...applied to Congress for a convention and therefore that Congress is obligated by law to call one."

Ms. Capps was incorrect in suggesting PTTP desired a "constitutional convention." PTTP has never advocated the calling of a constitutional convention. Walker v. Members of Congress specifically requests and accuses Congress of refusing to call an convention to propose amendments (Amendment Convention) to the Constitution under Article V of the Constitution*. Ms. Capps repeated the inaccurate accusations made by her legal representative, Karen D. Utiger of the Department of Justice in Utiger's brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Capps incorrectly referred to the title of the lawsuit as "Walker v. The United State Congress" implying the matter was against the Congress as a whole when in fact, as the members have committed criminal acts, the suit was filed individually against each member of Congress thus permitting these facts to be brought to the attention of the court. In her letter Ms. Capps did not deny that she, along with other members of Congress, had committed criminal acts in regards to the refusal by her and other members of Congress to call a convention as specified by Article V of the United States Constitution. Ms. Capps also did not take the occasion of her letter to clarify why Congress felt they have the right to refuse to obey the text of the Constitution or state the reasons behind their act. Finally, she did not repudiate the veto by Congress in refusing to call an amendment convention.

Ms. Capps also implied in her letter that it was only an opinion of PTTP that fifty states had applied for a convention under Article V. This is a factual error on the part of Ms. Capps. PTTP used the Congressional Record, a public record, as the basis of its accusation and support to prove that Congress was obligated to call an Amendment Convention. Finally, Ms. Capps implied Congress was obligated "by law" to call a convention. In this she is only partly correct. The Constitution describes itself as "Supreme Law" which, if Ms. Capps and the other members of Congress prevail in Walker v. Members of Congress, Congress will no longer be obligated to obey. That "Supreme Law" does demand as a "peremptory" act that Congress call an Amendment Convention. Congress has refused to even propose a federal law regarding any part of the amendment process whether that process involves a convention or congressional proposal of amendments. Such a law of course would obviously recognize the validity of the convention by Congress and compel that body to call such a convention when constitutional standards were satisfied. Therefore it is obvious why Congress has never passed such a law.

Ms. Capps indicated in her letter she will withhold further comments, if any, until Walker v. Members of Congress is ruled on by the courts. In earlier correspondence with Ms. Capps' staff, it was asserted Ms. Capps was prevented by ethics rules of the House of Representatives. However, after a copy of those rules were presented to the staff members showing that no such ethical prohibition existed in those rules, this objection was withdrawn. (The rules can be downloaded using the above link then clicking on "Ethics Manual). It is therefore clear that there is no official rule in Congress preventing any or all members from commenting or responding to the accusations and issues raised in Walker v. Members of Congress


LINKS

Amicus Brief

Attorney List

First District Court Case

Information Page

Letters to the Government

Letter to the Supreme Court

Lois Capps Letter

Main Page

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Page

Quick Summary

References

Second Court Case

Supreme Court Letter

Supreme Court Page

Title Page

What The Court Decision Means