it's not rude to tell someone to buzz off. you mention the "need" for applications to be same subject, yet it doesn't exist in law. where in article v does it say applications "need" to be same subject or contemporaneous? it doesn't, so in other words, the states have legally satisfied the convention clause of article v and each session of congress pretends it doesn't know what's going on and people like you believe applications "need" to be same subject, when they don't. if the function of a convention is to build consensus, why limit discussion when any idea coming out of it still has to be ratified? the convention call is based on an objective numeric count--why? so people like you have to call a convention when you don't want to. enjoy the FOAVC website. in regards to my Santa Cruz Island Adventure, yes was a legal/political action in regards to article v, and had magistrate remark in court they were unaware the states had cast sufficient applications to mandate a federal convention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment