LogoSubjects Inside: Article V Applications  FAQ, Application Counts By Congress, Articles, AVC Legislative Report, CRS Reports, Convention of States, The Historic Record of COS, COS Laws, COS Articles, John Birch Society, Con-Con, Runaway Convention, Who Called the Convention, Congressional Vote on a "Runaway" Convention, "Obey the Constitution, Only Two More States", Rescissions, The Phony Burger Letter, The Madison Letter, Fotheringham Exchange, JBS Articles, Sibley Lawsuit, General Interest, Article V.org, Robert Natelson, History of Article V, Counting the Applications, The Numeric Count History, Congressional Decision of May 5, 1789, Development of Article V, The Committee of the Whole, The Committee of Detail, August 30, September 10, Committee of Style, September 15, Official  Government Documents, History of FOAVC, Founders, Audio/Visual, Links, Contact Us, Legal Page, 14th Amendment, The Electoral Process, Packets, Definitions, Numeric Counts of Applications, Same Subject Counts of Applications

Sibley Lawsuit To Force AVC Call Loses Appeal

On December 15, 2016 an appeal by Montgomery Sibley in his suit Sibley v Ryan/McConnell to the District Court of Appeals was denied by the appeals court on the basis of lack of standing. Despite the fact Sibley filed his suit in what is termed an "Article I" court, that is a federal court created under authority of Article I of the Constitution, instead of an "Article III" court. The difference constitutionally between the two courts has been that an Article I court does not require standing while an Article III court does.

An Article I court, in this case the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, is equivalent to a county superior court in a state and generally deals with similar judicial matters. However, under the law creating the court, any matter may be submitted to the court for its consideration. Sibley thus filed his suit to order the court to compel Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to call an Article V Convention. The record of applications is clear: the states have applied in sufficient number to cause 11 convention calls. Congress has counted 35 states in its recent counting of applications.

Based on its continued opposition now in several lawsuits it is clear the government has no intention of obeying Article V and calling a convention as required. In each instance  the lawsuit seeking to have Congress obey the Constitution  has been thwarted by the courts on the same basis: lack of standing which the government thus far as successfully used in each case. No federal court has thus far even bothered to consider the merits of the case which simply are: Congress is mandated to call a convention which they have.

There is no reason to believe, given the position of Congress in its legal battles over calling an Article V Convention that of outright opposition, that Congress will be disposed to call a convention under any circumstances or even respect a convention called by the states.

Sibley has submitted a petition for an "en banc" hearing by the entire DC Appeals Court to consider his lawsuit. Further appeal may follow. A decision by the court whether grant an "en banc" hearing is expected in mid-spring.

The court's ruling may be read below by clicking the image to enlarge:

001 002
The petition for "en banc" can be read here:



Page Last Updated: 9 APRIL 2017