[Publius]

You're free to assert that there is no requirement for applications from the states for an Amendments Convention to list a subject. You're free to assert that Congress has been derelict since the 1890's. But the fact that it's your opinion, and the opinion of those two legal writers, does not make it so. Congress will not say, "Oh gosh, we should have called a convention in 1895, but we didn't. We had better get on the ball and call one now!"

No state attorney general, who by the way would have standing, is going to go to federal court and make that claim, and no federal court will order Congress to call a convention based on the legal thinking of the two authors of that legal piece. That's just how the world of politics, law and power works. I'm not talking legal theory, I'm talking legal facts on the ground.

By concentrating on this item, you're taking your eye off the ball. Keep your eye on the ball!

The "ball" here is to get a minimum of 34 states to apply for a convention using Georgia's language which was extracted from Mark Levin's book. Once we have that, Congress will call a convention, if for no other reason because of the optics of openly defying the Constitution.

By the way, I don't "detest" Hamilton. I don't know where you got that, but it's a cheap shot. You're a good enough debater to skip such foolishness.

[Jacquerie]

My lights are the framers and founding generation, not the 20th century blackrobes who warped and soiled the constitution.

My opinions are based on the historic record. If you disagree, point out from the record where I am wrong. The constitution as amended means what it says. Nothing in the record requires same subject applications. So what if dozens of amendments have piled up since the 19th century? The requisite number of applications for a convention was reached decades ago. Fact.