Constantly invoking the constitution as an argument, when the heart of the matter is that you disagree, is to cry wolf and undermines its status as an important

Constantly invoking the constitution as an argument, when the heart of the matter is that you disagree, is to cry wolf and undermines its status as an important document. Further it's not a particularly good argument since there are countless opinions on how to interpret "spirit of the constitution" as illustrated by the disagreements over different laws. And since I'm not a US citizen nor in the US, I'm actually not covered by the constitution.