[Ditto]

I can understand why you would prefer not to answer my questions... ;>)

I still don't get what the hell you question is, but I'll play along with you anyway.

“You state that the clause in question ‘has to do with amending the Constitution.’ I was wondering: did you reach that conclusion from the location of the clause in Article V...?

I reached that conclusion because that is what the clause says. That is what the heading says. I cited Article V only because that is what H.Askton claimed it showed a right to seceed. Do you deny he said that? Do you agree with him? Did I post the wrong Article V? Do you have a different version on your planet?

Now if you have a point to make, go ahead in make it and shove your condesenting libertarian attitude where the sun don't shine while you're at it.

I'll debate you anytime, but I despise playing guessing games.

[Who is John Galt?]

I reached that conclusion because that is what the clause says. That is what the heading says...Now if you have a point to make, go ahead in make it...

Certainly. One would have a hard time suggesting that the clause in Article V applies only to the ratification of constitutional amendments, while simultaneously suggesting that the Article I clause relating to the suspension of the writ actually applies to the president, rather than Congress.

...and shove your condesenting libertarian attitude where the sun don't shine while you're at it.

I'm not a "libertarian." And neither am I an 'almost-unlimited-government-power' advocate like our friend Walt. As for "condesenting" - present something other than your opinion, and I may respond to your posts somewhat differently.

I'll debate you anytime, but I despise playing guessing games.

If I wanted to trade unsubstantiated opinion and elementary school insults, I would contact a Democrat (or #3Fan ;>). I prefer to debate the facts...