>>Comprende? Res Ipsa Loquitur.<<
No offense, but you have misapplied “non sequitur” and have now misapplied “the thing speaks for itself” - an incredibly strong legal fundamental.
Literal translation does not necessarily translate into the meaning behind the phrase.
It does not follow that political non-viability of this loser argument means that I (or anyone else) have abandoned the Constitution — your thesis. The new claim of absurdity is, let us say, “interesting.”
It is like saying “you don’t like the color of my car so you don’t like the beach at sunset.” One does not follow from the other.
Likewise, there is no obvious statement that speaks upon its face. Bandying terms might be fun, but understanding them before you do may be the better part of valor.
There is no other interpretation than mine. Either you defend the constitution or you abandon it. There is no middle ground in ignoring consitutional qualifications for POTUS. Either you uphold it, and fight to defend it, or you abandon it. Claiming it is 'not a viable political option' is pure abandonment. I know it sucks for you to have to face the truth here, but it is what it is.
Sorry, but the faulty 'interpretation' belongs to you alone. Therefore not only is MY interpretation the correct one, but the non seqitur is yours. Not surprising you can't grasp this since you can't seem to grasp the word 'parents' in Bingham's statements on the floor of congress either. Another freeper called you dense, I'll leave it at that.
And no I have not misapplied Res Ipsa Loquitur either. Your actions definitely do speak for itself, like it or not.