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.
Perhaps you should go back and read the posts:
Post #364
“I believe Mr. Madison noted in The Federalist Papers that the violation of a compact by one party was grounds for the abrogation of the compact by the other parties. But perhaps we should simply refer to Mr. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, which post-date the ratification of the Constitution, and were written with full knowledge of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights...”
“Mr. Jefferson declares that each State “has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” (Later in the Resolutions, he cites the Tenth Amendment as grounds for State action...)”
“Mr. Jefferson apparently believed that the States, as parties to the compact, were free to judge for themselves regarding "necessary and proper" means. Not so the federal government, which was a creature of the compact rather than a party to it. Perhaps we should refer to Mr. Madison’s comments regarding other constitutional clauses which have been ‘inflated’ beyond a “plain” reading of the text, and beyond the Founders intent (pardon the length of the quote – it all appeared applicable)...”
“You are certainly free to reach your own conclusions. The fact remains: the Constitution nowhere ‘plainly’ prohibits secession – but it does quite ‘plainly’ reserve all powers “not delegated...nor prohibited” to the States and their people. As for Mr. Webster, I will leave you with the following...”
Post #372
“Actually, it is not up to you (or I) to judge regarding the tolerability (or lack thereof ) of federal oppression faced by the citizens of the Southern States. As Mr. Jefferson noted...”
Etc., etc., etc...
Your suggestion that I “didn’t present any point” is obviously ludicrous. Do you bother to read the posts to which you reply?
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?
I did not think anything other than a rudimentary command of the English language was required to understand the following:
“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...? Does the location of the clause have significance? Does the clause apply exclusively to Article V concerns (constitutional amendment)?”
Simple questions – for most people.
I gave him a detailed rebuttal, with citations and case law in # 710..
Really? Perhaps you should provide “a detailed rebuttal, with citations” to one of my posts quoted above. Your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't quite measure up...
;>)