...The SCU is only being discussed because I said "what could the Senate legally do to challenge an Emperor?" You said "well, they could pass a SCU", to which I replied "no, they can't, cos he can veto it". So why are you even discussing the SCU?
See your above quote @Caesarmagnus. You advanced an argument, said argument was refuted. So, you claim that the refutation is invalid because "details, conditions and requisites that [you] withheld."
Were I to accept this and address your minutia then I would ultimately be doing you a disservice by encouraging/rewarding fallacious reasoning.
As for your reply to the effect that "no, he can veto it," I showed a source demonstrating that veto could be vetoed. You simply claimed that "you're wrong."
Whereas I have consistently sourced you've consistently contradicted without offering sources in support of those contradictions.