Nope.
You still do not seem to understand. The bill in question does not change the Constitution. I do disagree with calling what should be a treaty an agreement, but this labeling has been upheld. I am arguing that nathan was wrong to claim that Cruz and the agreement are changing the Constitution.
By voting for fast track, Cruz is neither changing the Constitution nor supporting the “agreement”.
And asking how many cases he has argued before USSC is NOT ad hominem. By saying I would put more stock in the person who has argued and won cases before the USSC, I was not using “Appeal to Authority”, which called “argument by higher authority”.
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
I did not do that, Rather, I put “more stock” in Cruz because of his success. I did not draw any conclusion only from his success. I made contributed far more argument and evidence than that.
Your charge of ad hominem and Appeal to Authority are both false.
And still, nobody has proven, or even offered any evidence, that Cruz and/or the fast track legislation has changed the Constitution. That is the issue at hand. Trying to change the argument to something else comes close to the Straw Man fallacy.
My arguments are correct, and I understand the issue perfectly. Your arguments are not merely wrong, they’re dishonest. You’re embarrassing yourself.