Activists go to court over potential ConCon

I’ve got a story today looking at some of the absurdities of our current state Constitution and how to potentially fix them.

As luck may have it, an organization that includes longtime constitutional activist Bob Shulz is already looking toward a potential constitutional convention and they’ve gone to court.

They are seeking a judgment that would basically keep out the insiders, that is elected officials, lobbyists and other political players from serving as constitutional delegates.

This makes some sense when you consider their rationale — “we can’t allow those who the Constitution is meant to govern control all pathways to constitutional change.”

Here is a release from the organization, We the People and the court filing:

Citizens from across New York State
filed a class action lawsuit today against the entire state and
municipal government (both active and retired), the New York State
Political Parties, and all persons registered with the Joint
Commission on Public Ethics as lobbyists who further their interests
by influencing the governmental decision-making process on the state
and/or local level. The suit seeks to prevent the entire class of
defendants from becoming delegates at any future State Constitutional
Convention, the purpose of which would be to recommend changes to the
New York State Constitution, i.e. the Rule Book designed to govern
their behavior.

“We who are filing this lawsuit believe it is the ultimate conflict of
interest to have as delegates at a Constitutional Convention anyone in
whose interest it would be to lessen the restrictions on governmental
power at the expense of individual Rights, Freedoms and Liberties,”
said Robert Schulz of Washington County, one of the Plaintiffs and
founder of We The People of New York, Inc. “The purpose of government
is to secure the natural rights of the People. The purpose of the
Constitution is to structure and regulate the People’s servant
government. We can’t allow those who the Constitution is meant to
govern control all pathways to constitutional change.”

Changes to the New York Constitution can only take place following a
vote of the people in a general election. Proposed changes can be
placed before the People for their approval in two ways: 1) The State
Legislators may agree to place them; or 2) the delegates to a
Constitutional Convention can agree to place them on the ballot.

The Constitution requires the question, “Shall there be a convention
to revise the Constitution and amend the same” to be on the statewide
ballot in 2017. In addition, the Legislature is authorized to place
the question on the ballot before then.

We The People of New York, Inc. is a permanent statewide non-political
not-for-profit organization of citizens whose sole purpose is to
institutionalize citizen vigilance to hold government accountable to
the Rule of Law. The filing of this action at this time comes as a
result of an event which took place yesterday at the Rockefeller
Institute “A New New York: The Constitutional Dimension” hosted by
effectiveny.org, Albany Law School, CRREO and the Rockefeller
Institute of Government.

Activists go to court over potential ConCon

1
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT – ALBANY COUNTY
___________________________________________ ROBERT L. SCHULZ, HENRY L. HAMILTON,AL BELARDINELLI, ANDREA STUKAS,JOHN I. MINERD, RITA EDWARDS, CARL EDWARDS,EVELYN LONGLEY, DENNIS B. SWEENEY,JAMES M. WALKER, ROBIN G. CARR, ROBERT E. RICE,JOHN W. WALLACE, TIMOTHY A. CHICHESTER,ZACHARIAH A. CHICHESTER, EMANUELEMARINARO, PHILIP POLIZOTTO, KENNETH L.HOLMES, JULIANNE M. THOMPSON, JOHN RUS THOMPSON, CAROL POLINER, JENNA POLINER,ELEANOR CORCORAN, JAMES CORCORAN, INDEX NO. ___________ KENNETH C. SCHOLZ, VICTORIA POCZKALSKI,EDWARD L. MCCARTY, MICHAEL J. BRITT,RICHARD C. BARRETT, SHELBY BARRETT, STEVENGLICK, CHRISTOPHER J. NICHOLS, LOUINE M. KOLB,JOHN L. SHELTER, JOHN MARTIN, JOHN L.BOSWORTH II, MICHAEL R. BELL, JOHN S. HUMPHREY,JEFFREY L. STEVENS, JOHN C. DEWITT, KAY S.HOFFMAN, BEVERLY J. HURLEY, BART S. BONNER,DEBRA THOMPSON, ESTELLA A. HART, LAURA L.STEVENS, RONALD G.MOORE, DAVID WILLIAM BOWER,STEPHEN KRAEGER, JANE WOODWARD, SUSAN J.ENGLERT, JAMES P. DELANEY, EDWARD A. GARTZ,RALPH ERIC SCHNACKENBERG, JULIA S. GAMBINO,ANDREAS MILONIS, MARK AXINN, DONALD G. HOBEL,EDWARD D. PETTITT, JANET MARTIN, MYRON D.ANNIS, MARTHA A. FRANCIS, RITA D. LARSON,THOMAS J. LARSON, ROBERT ELLISON, JOANNEWILDER, MARY ANN BUERMAN, TANYA PARROW,GEORGE G. RADFORD, PATRICIA M. RADFORD,ANTOINETTE M. BLACK, HARVEY E. DAVIES, JAMES M.DOOHER, KEVIN T. COTE, ROBERT SPENCER, MYRNAA. THAYNE, PRISCILLA TAMARO, GEORGE TAMARO,DAVE CRAWMER, EDWARD M. STEHLIN, MARY ANNPENNELL, NANCY W. FOSTER, DALTON P. FOSTER,DONALD R.WHITE, CHAD H. CURRIN, WILBUR W. CARD,VANESSA PARSONS, HARVEY KASH, GARY L. PERRY, DENVER L. JONES, KATHLEEN C. ELLIOTT, VIVIAN Y.WADLIN, JUDITH M. WHITMORE, JOHN SALVADOR, JR.,ANTHONY FUTIA, JR., and CHRISTOPHER J. ENGLERT- Plaintiffs-Petitioners-againstANDREW M. CUOMO and all others similarly situated;DEAN G. SKELOS and all others similarly situated;JONATHAN LIPPMAN and all others similarly situated;MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG and all others similarly situated;DANNY DONAHUE and all others similarly situated;JOHN L. STIPO and all others similarly situated;ED COX and all others similarly situated;STEPHANIE MINER and all others similarly situated.- Defendants-Respondents __________________________________________ PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, each and every one listed in the caption above allege:1.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR 3001.2.

The relief requested herein is a judgment and order:a)

declaring it to be a conflict of interest for defendants to be delegates at any New York State Constitutional Convention, and b)

permanently enjoining defendants and all similarly situated from becoming delegatesat any future New York State Convention, andc)

for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and proper.
JURISDICTION
3.

Section 3001

of the CPLR provides that a court “may render a declaratory judgment” toresolve “the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy.”
“The supreme court may render a declaratory judgment having the effect of a final judgment asto the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.
If the court declines to render such a judgment it shall stateits grounds.” CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, SECTION 3001.
4.

The statute is broad in scope.
James v. Alderton Dock Yards, Ltd
., 256 N.Y. 298, 305(1931).5.

There is no inherent limitation on the type of declaratory relief available under theDeclaratory Judgment Act, CPLR 3001.
Maguire v. Monaghan
, 206 Misc. 550, 555, (Sup.Ct. N.Y. County 1954),
afl’d mem.,
285 App. Div. 926 (1st Dep’t 1955);6.

Plaintiffs have an individual, implied constitutional Right, a legally protected interest, to a pathway to constitutional change that is not controlled by those who directly or indirectlywield governmental power over them, i.e., their governmental “Agents.”7.

Plaintiffs have a substantial interest in the determination of this controversy.8.

This Right is in danger of infringement by the defendants.9.

This controversy is definite, substantial, and ripe for final determination. The parties haveadverse interests that collided in 1967, the last time the People voted for a ConstitutionalConvention, and resulted in harm, and threaten to do so again as early as 2014.10.

However, neither an actual infringement of rights nor alternate coercive relief are necessaryin a declaratory judgment action.
See, e.g.,
Town of Ramapo v. Village of Spring Valley,40 Misc. 2d 589, 591 (Sup. Ct. Rockland County 1962) (declaratory relief available to testvalidity of contract although it had not been breached),
appeal dismissed,
13 N.Y.2d 918,(1963).11.

A declaration of the Rights of the People and the Obligations of the Government under Article XIX Section 2 of the New York Constitution in this case will serve a necessary anduseful purpose.
Davis Constr. Corp. v. County of Suffolk
, 112 Misc. 2d 652, 656, (Sup. Ct.Suffolk County 1982),
aff’d mem.,
95 App. Div. 2d 819 (2d Dep’t 1983)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115042028/Complaint-11-28-12-6pm