Evidently, they're throwing all manner of legalese, as well as ad hominem and red herring fallacies, in an effort to convince the opposition that what the GoverNerd has done is perfectly constitutional.  However, they persistently fail to answer the most basic of questions:  At what specific point in all of this legal soup do we have anything that is clearly in compliance with Article 2, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution?