I’m perfectly familiar with the term “it does not follow” aka non sequitur, capiche?
Your claim that the BC is most likely a forgery, but is not ‘a viable political option’, is absurd. That claim is not only absurd, its contradictory and definitely ‘does not follow’ making it the real non sequitur here.
Comprende? Res Ipsa Loquitur.
>>Comprende? Res Ipsa Loquitur.<<
No offense, but you have misapplied “non sequitur” and have now misapplied “the thing speaks for itself” - an incredibly strong legal fundamental.
Literal translation does not necessarily translate into the meaning behind the phrase.
It does not follow that political non-viability of this loser argument means that I (or anyone else) have abandoned the Constitution — your thesis. The new claim of absurdity is, let us say, “interesting.”
It is like saying “you don’t like the color of my car so you don’t like the beach at sunset.” One does not follow from the other.
Likewise, there is no obvious statement that speaks upon its face. Bandying terms might be fun, but understanding them before you do may be the better part of valor.