Replies

In only what can be only described as a kiss off response Kirk Boyle, legal counsel of the House of Representatives responded in a one page letter to Dan Marks' request for an official count of state applications currently recognized by Congress for an Article V Convention call.

The sheer volume of applications in question is best appreciated by examination of this map.

Mr. Boyle’s response was succinct — number of applying states counted by Congress: zero.

Mr. Boyle stated Karen Haas, Clerk of the House of Representatives, whose job it is to maintain and keep all reports required by law has not been instructed by statutory law to maintain any count of the applications.

However this response does not agree with the facts. As reported earlier, “Under House rules (Rule II, 2(b) and Rule VII) the clerk of the House is responsible for providing any reports required by law to be made to Congress. This of course includes a report listing the number of applying states requesting a convention call as the “law” in question is Article V of the Constitution. The procedure for recording applications was established on May 5, 1789 and has remained unchanged. Therefore, according to House rules, the record is public domain as it has existed over 30 years. Under House rules the clerk is considered the “custodian” of all records of the House of Representatives including state applications for a convention call.”

Mr. Boyle’s letter does not discuss that the Constitution describes Article V, as well as the rest of the Constitution, as “law of the land.” That law mandates Congress call a convention. Obviously, to be in compliance with that law, Congress must track the applications in order to know when to call.

However, Mr. Boyle asserts, because Congress has not passed a law authorizing a count of applications, no one is obliged to count the applications, including the House clerk. Therefore Congress does not have to call a convention because it has not consented to do so in the form of a law authorizing such count. Thus, Congress can ignore the Constitution because it has not consented to be bound to the terms of Article V and conduct a count of applications. In legal language, this is known as the principle of sovereign consent or sovereign immunity.

Despite four Supreme Court rulings mandating a convention call is peremptory, Mr. Boyle’s position is all 746 applications submitted by 49 states don’t count because Congress has never consented to obeying the Constitution; in this instance by providing a means for the applications to be counted by Congress.

This fact means, not only are all applications for a convention call by the states being ignored by Congress, but also all so-called “rescissions” which the John Birch Society has spent the last 40 years submitting to Congress. This fact means these so-called “rescissions” are meaningless. They have had no effect whatsoever on the number of applying states or their applications as Congress has never recognized the validity of the applications in question. Therefore, from the point of view of Congress, there is nothing to rescind.

Mr. Boyle suggested Mr. Marks consent to having his letter forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee “for further consideration.” There are several problems with this suggestion. First, the Founders made it absolutely clear the issue of a convention call was not to be submitted to a congressional committee. Such an act, according to James Madison, would imply Congress would have the authority to refuse and not call the convention. Secondly, the rules (or lack thereof) Mr. Boyle cites for the refusal by the clerk to count the applications are the same House rules which govern the committee and subcommittee.

Thus, these entities have no more authority to count the applications than the clerk does, if one accepts the premise set forth by Mr. Boyle. Hence, according to the rules (or lack thereof), the committees can give no more “consideration” to Mr. Marks’ request than the clerk has. Mr. Boyle’s purpose is obvious. By asking Mr. Marks to submit his letter to a congressional committee for “consideration, ” Mr. Boyle wants to establish Congress has a choice as to whether or not to call a convention — even if the states apply in sufficient number.

As cited above, this so-called choice is entirely contrary to the Founders’ intent, court rulings, and even previous statements from Congress itself.