Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
In this case, those that crossed the border to off Bin Laden.

Yes, I understand that a small strike team crossing a border to eliminate one of the most dangerous criminals in the world is not the same as actively supporting an armed insurrection - it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. US soldiers go over into Pakistan illegally on a daily basis. Drone strikes (confirmed) number in the hundreds, with around 200 children being killed.

And that's just Pakistan.
If Russia had been bombing or raiding groups holing up in Ukraine that were launching terrorist attacks in Russia or elsewhere, I expect that the language from the US government apparatus would be significantly different.

Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
Just because you contol+F the word "marriage" and it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it isn't in there.

Guess there is no right to privacy either...
What do you mean, exactly?


EDIT: Also your column is from 2014, pick something from the past year, you know....after SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage so you actually get to read on why it is in there.
If it was all along an obvious interpretation of the constitution, a few self-written sentences should presumably suffice - and be easy to write. It's not a requirement for US politicians to be experts in law.

At any rate, legal conclusions tend to involve a lot of interpretation; and I doubt it would be much harder to argue against the relevant supreme court decision than for.