Nope. Simply pointing out that if a political party has an agenda, they should run on it, they should offer it openly, and state their intentions clearly.
And if part of that agenda is to pass laws that will give an advantage to one political party, it is dishonest in the extreme to withhold that fact until they can throw a surprise party in a lame duck session. The appropriations rider, the neat legal trick that means the law cannot be brought to a referendum, gives the game away.
I trust you can see that this bears little resemblance to your paraphrase of my position.
As I said above, and will repeat in case it eluded you, “legal and Constitutional” is a phrase much associated with friend Bricker. It is intended in an ironic light. I was not offering you a springboard for a discussion of theoretical politics. If you want to argue that point, you will probably need to find someone interested in it.
What if the agenda is to switch the law about a governor appointing a senator to fill a vacant seat back and forth, depending on whether the governor is a Democrat or a Republican? What should the political party do then?
Bricker, ya got me. I’m a total hypocrite. Liar, blackguard, and despoiler of maidens. None of which changes any of the relevant facts of this matter. In the slightest. Let me know if there’s any part of that you don’t understand. I’m here to help.