You keep telling me that the AUMF is unconstitutional. Where is the court ruling? This whole conversation began on the question of whether it was legal or not.

You keep telling me that the AUMF is unconstitutional. Where is the court ruling? This whole conversation began on the question of whether it was legal or not. > Using the "global war" terminology literally justifies assassinating some guy in Cleveland or Detroit or Seattle too. I literally just explained to you the difference. > It was also written specifically to constrain its use to those who directly conspired against the US on 9/11. Anwar Al-Awlaki had nothing to do with planning or participating in 9/11. No, that’s not true. “ SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Al-Awlaki falls under the umbrella as outlined in the actual document. > It's quite clearly unconstitutional. Rather than quoting the war criminals responsible for the assassination as proof that it's legal, why not show me which part of the Constitution you think justifies putting US citizens on a hit list and denying them their rights. I quite clearly outlined to you a situation in which constitutional rights would not be afforded in my comment above. A position supported by the supreme court. But just to be clear: First, In Hamdi, A plurality of the Supreme Court use the Matthews V Eldridge bouncing test to analyze the fifth amendment due process rights of a US citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and detained in the United States who wish to challenge the governments assertion that he was a part of enemy forces, explaining that “the process do in any given instance is determined by Wayne the private interest that will be affected by the official action against the government certain interest including the function involved and the bird is the government with face and providing greater process.” [542 US at 529] [Mathews V. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 (1976). Although the circumstances of war as the Hamdi plurality observed, the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizens liberty the absence of sufficient process is… very real, 542 US at 530, the polarity also recognizes that the realities of combat render certain uses of force necessary in appropriate… including against US citizens who have become part of enemy forces in the due process analysis need not blink at those realities id. at 531. realities of combat and the weight of the government's interest in using an authorized means of lethal force against this enemy are such that the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process to the U.S. person before using such force. Cf. Hamdi 542 U.S. at 535 Second, The Supreme Court has made clear that the constitutionality of a seizure is determined by bouncing the nature in quality of the intrusion on the individuals fourth amendment interest against the importance of the governmental interest alleged to justify the intrusion [Tennessee V Gardner, 471 US 1, 8 (1985] accord Scott v. Harris, 550 US 372, 383 (2007). Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation overseas in feasible at the target person is a dangerous enemy forces and engage in activities that post continued and eminent threat to US persons or interest the use of weeks of lethal force we’re not violate the fourth amendment and those that intrusion of any fourth amendment interest would be outweighed by the importance of the governmental interest that justified intrusion, [Garner, 471, US at 8]. Lastly- “In applying this variant of the public authority justification to the contemplated operation, we note as an initial matter that DoD would undertake the operation pursuant to Executive war powers that Congress has expressly authorized. SeeYoungstown & Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.579,635 (1952) (Jackson, I., concurring) ( When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum , for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."). By authorizing the use of force against organizations” that planned, authorized, and committed the September 11th attacks, Congress clearly authorized the President's use of necessary and appropriate force against al- Qaida forces, because al-Qaida carried out the September attacks. See Authorization for Use ofMilitary Force ( . L.No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, 2 a) (2001) (providing that the President may use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States 27 And, as we have explained, supra at 9, a by such nations, organizations, or persons ) .decision-makercould reasonably conclude thatthis leaderofAQAP forces ispart ofal-Qaida forces. Alternatively, and as we have further explained supraat 10n.5,the AUMF applies with respect to forces associated with al Qaida that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners, and a decision-maker could reasonably conclude that the AQAP forces of a which al-Aulaqi is a leader are " with al Qaida forces for purposes of the AUMF. On associated either view, DoD would carry out its contemplated operation against a leader of an organization that is within the scope of the AUMF, and therefore would in that respect be operating inaccord with a grant of statutory authority.”