[diamond6]

By your definition of what the Constitution says, there wouldn't be a single candidate left in the Senate or House, let alone the presidency, due to them all being in violation of the Constitution.

[dcwusmc]

You say that as if it were a BAD thing... why?

[Technogeeb]

By your definition of what the Constitution says,

No, by simply what the Constitution says. Words mean things, and the text of the Constitution is about as clear as words get. Next you'll be trying to defend Clinton's definition of what the word "is" is...

there wouldn't be a single candidate left in the Senate or House, let alone the presidency, due to them all being in violation of the Constitution

First, you're wrong; not everyone violates their oath of office. While they might not be in the majority any longer; they do exist (although they tend to be constantly ridiculed by people like you). You appear to be legitimizing the worst sort of criminal behavior (violating what is, literally, the highest law of the land) simply with the excuse of "but everybody's doing it".

[k2blader]

By [some folks] definition of what the Constitution says, there wouldn't be a single candidate left in the Senate or House, let alone the presidency, due to them all being in violation of the Constitution.

Agreed.

I'm interested in what makes this AWB issue more important than the other violations of the Constitution carried out over the years.