This is a losing proposition; it amounts to "the Constitution wasn't followed, so it doesn't need to be followed" — and in that case you are arguing for unrestrained government.
This is a losing proposition; it amounts to "the Constitution wasn't followed, so it doesn't need to be followed" — and in that case you are arguing for unrestrained government. Non sequitur. The one thing does not follow from the other.
I am arguing that since they broke the rules, and show every inclination to do so again, the rules should not constrain us either. As the French say " À bon chat, bon rat."