Reply #84: Actually no I wouldn't agree

[ConstitutionGuy]

The preference is not for a speedy result but for a result that is arrived in accordance with the agreed to principles and procedures established under law. Results arrived at by setting aside the law will always be tainted by suspicion and doubt and thus have no legitimacy. Nor can one alleged illegal act ever be rectifed or justified by resort to another. What you perceive as a 'just' end can never be legitimized as such if it is arrived out by disregard for the law.

This is precisely the argument against the legitimacy of this election...that it was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the law. Are we to operate by situational ethics? Do we claim that it's okay to set aside the law when my agenda is furthered but not OK when my agenda is damaged.


I've cited and quoted the law. It specifically addresses at least two of your issues...the fact that there are deadlines, that those deadlines are not moveable, and limitations on debate are both strict and enforceable. Res ipsor loquitor - the thing speaks for itself.

If you can cite for me a law or legal opinion that supports your contention, that deadlines in the law are meaningless, I will be glad to continue the discussion. But it seems your preferred method of debate is ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned debate backed up by facts and the law.