[ejonesie22]

If you read the article, and I did twice, that is exactly what it sounds like you are dong. Basing an argument that Rand Paul is not interested in the Constitution on a three response segment on Letterman.

Not saying you are right or wrong, just what the article implies.

I think you can understand that just because he did not say the word Constitution in an otherwise reasonable reply is not a sound basis for the argument and why that would seem a little bit of a stretch. Perhaps including some of this other information would broaden the basis of your point.

[RogerFGay]

That’s a very odd presumption - to think that everything I know is in the article. It gives the impression that you want to object to the content but don’t have a real argument.