Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jacquerie

He will not refute your post 145, I’m pretty sure of that.

Saying that Congress MUST call a convention upon application of 34 states is a great point that is well-supported. But ‘saying’ it does not make it so.

As a lawyer he is merely drawing attention to the fact that Congress may object that the core language of the applications is not uniform. ‘Saying’ that Congress cannot do that does not make it so. Every good fighter does not go into the ring expecting that his opponent adversary will hit above the belt at all times. Every good lawyer does not prepare a brief that expects the arguments of the adversary to be truthful and candid.

What you have to show (which you can’t; sorry) is that Congress won’t be able to throw a monkey wrench into the fight without matters ending up in Court.

Say Natelson agrees with you and applications on whatever are filed by 34 states. Suppose Congress says these are not all on the same subject (that’s very probable you know). Regardless of what you ‘say’ or what you point out that the Constitution says, just think now what? Congress just went against you and declared no convention will be called because the amendments are not uniform.

What are you going to do about it? You going to go shoot at them?

No, you are going to watch courts get involved and that means serious time gets wasted.

What did Obama do when the House would not vote for the Gang of 8 immigration reform? He went around them with Executive Amnesty.

But but but Obama can’t do that! The Constitution says yada yada! Well, he just did it. What you going to do about it? So the States took him to court and got a temporary stop on him. It’s now in court.

That’s where you’ll end up; in court.

Natelson’s plan is to sail through court by eliminating any points of objection or debate. That’s standard lawyering. He’s right. Where’s he wrong is in framing the issue from the federal side of the coin rather than the state side of the same coin.


175 posted on 07/05/2015 1:17:50 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies ]


To: Hostage
No federal court or Scotus has legitimate purview over either a state or congressionally initiated Article V process.

What should happen is at least 34 states should convene NOW, without waiting forever for a corrupt congress that will never call them to it. Let the DC denizens and media howl. Like good statists, they will all denounce the exercise of sovereignty.

The right to alter our government long precedes Article V.

There is little time.

176 posted on 07/05/2015 1:32:44 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

To: Hostage

C’mon Hostage. Chill.

I explained in my next sentence, “What should happen is at least 34 states should convene NOW, without waiting forever for a corrupt congress that will never call them to it.”


182 posted on 07/05/2015 2:47:16 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson