Reply To: NARSOL responds to untruths posted on Twitter

Timothy D.A. Lawver

“I think it’s like putting a camel through the eye on a needle.”
Its not as tough as that, not even close.

All it really takes is 1 FTR case. Just one VERY PUBLICIZED CASE.
Paul Ryan our nations current speaker could be called to my defense.
Why would I want to do that? Because he operates in my district and our founders made it possible.
They were enlightened & insightful to realize that the constitutional guarantee of trail, defence, and to call witnesses would secure the people from corruption in the three branches!

I propose demanding subpoena in such a case, calling Mr. Speaker to the stand, and put Wis stat under DIRECT SCRUTINY.
SCOTUS in AK v DOE did NOT disavow the EX-POST wording of the act, in fact they outright acknowledged it. THE PANEL merely supported state’s ( presumed civil intent). See the difference?

Mr.Ryan, under oath, would be forced to use the words “An ex-post law”. Can you imagine the IMPACT of such a statement to a jury of peers?

That my dear lady, is the difference between intermediate scrutiny and direct scrutiny.
It is time to exorcise it! Pun intended!