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...
What are you complaining about?
Go back and read you posts. You didn’t present any point. You were playing 20 questions. I never talked about the writ not did I follow the discussion of the writ. You never mentioned the writ in your queeries to me. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what you wanted to talk about? You jumped all over my case for debunking H.Askton when he claimed Article V allowed secession based on the sufferage of Senators clause in Article V. I saw no discussion of the writ it that exchange or any others between he, you or I until this latest post, and I fail to see what relationship writ has with Article V.
BTW. That noted constitutional scholar (snicker, sniker) H.Askton is slicing and dicing the Constitution as we speak over here in post #701. He claimed that Article III Section 2 says that Jeff Davis would have to been tried before the Supreme Court (and found innocent) not a jury trial if he had been charged with Treason because he was a ‘State Official” or some such nonsense. I gave him a detailed rebuttal, with citations and case law in # 710 if you care to honor us with your vast and, IYO, superior intellect.