Semantic, word-game arguments are much of the “game” in constitutional law. You may not like it, but thats how it really is. I’m showing you a tiny taste of what your real opponents will do. The real thing will not be run your way.
You can assert your opinion of the meaning of the Constitution all you like, but that would be irrelevant and useless in a genuine case before a Federal court. Your chances of success in this are very slim.
You have a choice - do you address reality, or a righteous fantasy ?
Very slim? Your fake President seems to think HIS chances are rather slim in court. Otherwise, we'd all have seen his documentation. I'm ready. My argument against your word games. The simple writing of the sentences in the U.S. Constitution against your made-up straw man arguments. Historical case law against your imaginary opinions. Lets go. Why are you not there, in court, with that AWESOME, Highly probable, Winning argument of yours? I can't wait.