Ahh Mr Sues, now you are adding stuff not in there. It does not say rights.. It says privileges and immensities.

Even still you are incorrect.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No PERSON

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Of the people.

The others are the same. It does not say citizen, and it has been interpreted to not mean citizen. So unless you are claiming better qualifications than the SCOTUS, you are definitely wrong.

The make of their tools was not in question.

Why would they? Governments in the EU is relativity similar, politics in North and Central America is vastly dissimilar, some completely opposite.

Are you trying to make a distinction? The antigun liberals dont think people should have the right to guns, not that one group should have the right and the other should not. Your attack fails because there is no analogy here.

it says any PERSON, not any CITIZEN.. So he is correct, you are wrong.

Umm, they did not have a couthouse, because they did not have permanant structures generally, but they had laws and standards of a civilization.

Government agencies dont consider manpower to be a cost in some cases.

There are lots of differences. For example a cop is obstructed by things like passer byes cars, small fences and the such. A camera mounted 30 ft up is not obstructed by any such things.

A camera mounted that high sees everything, a cop on a steak out only sees a very small subset. Also this was the appeals process. If I am not mistaken it is pretty much only the SCOTUS it can go to now.

Peeping then.

Umm, that does not counter what he said. The article 3 quote above does a better job. The question was, in effect which part of the constitution was be breaking, not what part covers the oath.

So you want to activate the reserves, upending massive amounts of family just to keep people in?

There is no American Union outside the United states.

So you yourself have seen the documents, all of them, and know that is all it pertains too?

Correct, however I believe that would be a very high bar for Sony to reach.

Umm, no it does not, from the article:

This was about a lawsuit not a criminal case. Maybe you should actually read the finding before making false statements.