Apparently this is the breaking point,

[OldDem2012]

58. But, are the actions carried out by the Obama Administration any more or less Constitutional ....

....than the actions carried out under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, even though the technology has improved over the last 30 years? Additionally, does the methodology of how someone is killed really matter all that much when the US conducts an assassination in a foreign country? By the way, the US has been conducting assassinations in other countries since the Eisenhower Administration, but they never asked Congress for the authorization to do so.

The precedent for the use of kidnappings and assassinations against enemies overseas has already been established....trying to put the cork in the bottle now is too little and much too late. The time to have acted was the second the Reagan Administration asked Congress for the right to kidnap enemies overseas and transport them to a US jurisdiction to be tried for their crimes against the US. By the way, it wasn't Reagan who came up with that idea....it was his VP, Poppy Bush, a former long-term CIA operative and Director. Is it any wonder his son expanded the program to where it stands today?

I would also argue that every US President going back to George Washington has conducted one or more actions that could be perceived as unconstitutional, or were actually unconstitutional, to include some actions against US Citizens in the US. The conditions at the time the actions were taken generated the necessity to do so.

As to part of the issue at hand, I personally don't have much sympathy for a US Citizen who is discovered to be actively involved in terrorist plots or actions against US military or civilian personnel overseas. You reap what you sow.