[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...

[Ditto]

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.

Exactly when did I "simultaneously' suggest anything about Article 1? I never mentioned Article I in my reply to H.Askton. I don't even see what the relevance is to his claim that Article V somehow supported the right to secede.

And if Article V does not pertain to ratification of amendments, exactly what does it pertain to, (in your all-wise and knowing opinion of course.)

BTW, I apologize for calling you condescending. After reading your last post, I find you to only be pompous.