As significant as it might be that George Will has boarded the train, it is not insignificant that he fails either to credit or to acknowledge the participation of Mark Levin in the Article V movement. This movement will find itself fighting more than a two front war as it encounters sniping from all sides as the movement proceeds. It is vital that there be coordination early on to avoid offering the Washington establishment any opening to divide and conquer.
As both of you know, Congress will use any discrepancy in the application for convention to discount the applications and refrain from making the "call" for a convention. That is why it is so vital that all applications for a convention be coordinated with identical wording etc.
It appears to me the George Will has gone with the Goldwater Inst.'s version to avoid any apparent connection to Levin who has roughed up George Will considerably of late. Nor is it insignificant that George Will' s approved version appears to be limited to balance budget approach without the structural reforms advanced by Levin and others. To the degree that George Will is a conservative his credentials are largely in the zone of fiscal conservatism.
The Republican as well is the Democrat establishment in Washington would very much like to see these divisions inchoate but embedded in the various state applications to be exploited later.
Curly Howard has(had) more wisdom than George Will...
George is always on the verge of going full moonbat but doesn’t..
He is an intestinal parasite.. in the republican colon...
laying eggs... i.e. part of “the problem”...
I don't disagree with a word of your analysis. I'm under no illusion there will be a state convention to propose amendments. The Uniparty will utilize any means necessary to sabotage the process.
What grinds my sensibilities is the outrage, that in what was designed as a federal republic, in which the states were equal custodians of our freedoms, the consolidated government has assumed illegitimate power to split hairs over the wording of state applications, in order to avoid calling an amendment convention.
The constitution is silent as to what constitutes acceptable wording of applications. No matter the composition of the applications, if two thirds of the states call for a federal convention to propose amendments, Congress is constitutionally bound to call a convention.
From the wording of Article V, from Madison's notes at the Philly convention, and The Federalist, I'm not aware of any requirement for identical applications. It follows that it is up to the state legislatures alone to determine the scope of their delegates' commissions, and subsequent amendment proposals, not Congress nor a lawyer in the bowels of the Office of the Federal Register.
It is constitutionally irrelevant whether thirty four states call for an amendment convention to propose term limits, a balanced budget or repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments. Congress is constitutionally bound to call a convention when thirty four states apply for a convention, no matter the amendment subject matter.
Yes, I'm sure there is a trail of Scotus decisions that disfavor what I've written. Since the federal courts are little more than the political muscle, the legal arm of the Uniparty, and serve to cast a patina of legitimacy to statism rather than function as unbiased constitutional arbiters, I don't really care.
Events in NV reflect building disgust that can be addressed in one of two ways. Only one of them is peaceful.