[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.

[Who is John Galt?]

Exactly when did I "simultaneously' suggest anything about Article 1?

I never stated that you did. I asked those three simple questions in an attempt to ascertain your position. You refused to answer them. Instead you suggested that “if you have a point to make, go ahead in make it.” I did so: the suspension of the writ was being discussed by others, and I presented my “point” in those terms.

What are you complaining about?

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

Actually, you called me “condesenting.”

;>)

And, after reading the posts you’ve addressed to me, I continue to find only unsubstantiated opinions and insults...