[Hostage]

Yeah, saw that before.

Phyllis is a Beltway insider and like all Beltway insiders she feels threatened by state legislators getting in the driver’s seat. It’s a foreign concept to her. It’s out of her comfort zone.

She may be coming around by now or she’ll have to eventually.

Today’s Article V movement is fairly new by a few years but it is not reacting to anything new. It’s reacting to things evolving since 1913 which we can call the dawn of the Progressive Era.

I would take an iPad or tablet to that diner where those little ladies are seated and I would excuse myself for interrupting, introduce myself and politely ask if they would watch the following Mark Levin video at time 28:10 to 33:45:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA

Of course they should listen to the whole thing but for the 5 minute clip above I might even offer to buy their meal if they would listen!

[Publius]

I think the crux of Jacq's argument in #145 is this, and it is precisely the same argument that Walker made in Walker v. US in 2000:

• The Single Subject Standard for state applications for a COS that Congress has used for the past 226 years is unconstitutional;
• Congress' tabulation of state applications by state (row) and subject (column) is unconstitutional;
• Tabulation should be by row only with the subject matter of the application being irrelevant;
• As such, Congress should have called a COS in the 1890s when the two thirds threshold was reached (by ignoring subject matter);
• Congress has been in dereliction of its duty since the 1890s;
• Congress today has a duty to call a COS because the two thirds threshold was reached over a century ago.

That's how I understand the argument. The late "Congressman Billybob" explained the Single Subject Standard for tabulation as a part of contract law, the COS being the agent of the states who are the principals. An agent cannot go beyond the agency agreement that he and his principals agree on. He also said that the Single Subject Standard predated the Constitution, going back to basic principles of English Common Law.

As such, I've accepted the Single Subject Standard for convention applications from the states, as does Natelson. Walker's suit failed for lack of standing and futility. My guess would be that only a state could argue Walker's conclusions in federal court.