Again, this was already addressed in the OP when I said they are trying to use a quantity over quality argument. The lack of “quality” is that, in the quanitity of “consensus,” the legal reasoning has NOT been consistent in these cases. I already explained this too. There’s no reason to regurgitate the point unless you think the consensus is based on a “correct” interpretation, which it demonstrably is not. The most widespread legal reaction has been to deny legal standing to private citizens who have challenged the Kenyan coward, but again, this hasn’t even been consistent from a legal rationale standpoint.
“There’s no reason to regurgitate the point unless you think the consensus is based on a “correct” interpretation”
__
I’ve already told you many times that’s not what I think. If you don’t believe me, too bad. Maybe your reading comprehension will improve with time.