I’m sorry you feel that way but you can’t please all of the people all of the time. It would certainly be fallacious to say that I was doing that.
I’ll leave it to the individual reader to decide what they consider to be fallacious and what they consider to be true.
Were the long, detailed annotations for the 20th amendment “fallacious?” How about the link to the section of the U.S. Code dealing with the Electoral College process? Anything fallacious there?
Anything fallacious in the link to a book that discusses the meaning of “president-elect shall have failed to qualify” in the 20th amendment?
Was the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the purpose of the 20th amendment fallacious?
Is there anything fallacious about discussing the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress’ 2004 report “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation,” which discusses the question of when candidates who have received a majority of electoral votes become President-elect.
Yes. The insinuation that U.S. Code has anything to do with Constitutional law. As I have pointed out to you before, US Code doesn't redefine constitutional terms.
Was the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the purpose of the 20th amendment fallacious?
Yes. It was a poorly researched and poorly argued appeal to false authority.
Is there anything fallacious about discussing the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress’ 2004 report “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation,” which discusses the question of when candidates who have received a majority of electoral votes become President-elect.
Yes. It was nothing but a post hoc ad hoc fig leaf deliberately solicited by congressmen who wanted the issue to go away. It too is a poorly researched and poorly argued appeal to false authority.