What do you call challenging a statement based on the Constitution when the challenger hasn’t even read, much less understand the Constitution? Seems like “stupid” fits pretty well.
I’m not challenging a constitutional argument at all. You never asserted a constitutional argument
You asserted on a non legal common forum that Trump subverts he constitution
You can provide a convincing statement fitting for a common forum or ba called out as falsely accusing him
That’s all
I’m just saying calling me stupid is not the proof or argument we’re looking for