Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president

[harmonicon]

128. I know that you know you're wrong.

Trust me, I'm not doing this for your benefit, but for that of someone who may think for some reason that you're putting forth a credible argument.

1. The resolution you cite is meaningless clap-trap. It certainly doesn't trump the US constitution. Did you think it was something like a constitutional amendment? I didn't think so.

2. If you do think it is, maybe you forgot that it was for this: "such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad" - Do you see where instead of, as you assert, reading "murder", it reads "protect"?

3. Al-Awlaki had nothing to do with any terrorist attack in the US, and his son who would have been like 6 at the time certainly did not.

If one little resolution did mean what you suggest, it would mean that no US citizen has rights anywhere in the world as far as the US government is concerned, once the president decides they don't. If that's a world you want to live in, congratulations. It's not a world that I like living in.