I'm not arguing that America's handling of the Syrian Civil War has been good. I was simply pointing out that your assumption that Russia (or Putin as the case may be) would do something to actually intervene in the conflict was something of a pipe dream as they have done nothing but support the Assad government militarily. I did this through the use of evidence(articles) of said military support and by pointing out the escalation of the Ukrainian civil war by Russia because of its annexation of Crimea and sending Russian troops into the conflict rather than any attempt to particularly reduce that conflict.

The examples of Afghanistan and Chechnya were brought up because they were examples of Soviet/Russian overestimation of their own capabilities and underestimation of their opponents resolve/capabilities. From those examples it doesn't appear that they have a particularly good appraisal of how long/how much effort it will take to deal with insurgent groups. As such I was pointing out that their judgement of how long it would take to deal with ISIL may very well be flawed as they have not had a decent track record in the past for such appraisals.

If I can direct your attention to my use of the terms "inferred" and "ceded" when initially discussing judicial review you'll note that I don't attribute the power to the Supreme Court as derived directly from the Constitution. It actually does not specifically state in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. However, the Judiciary Act of 1789 does specifically incorporate the concept in regard to both federal and state statutes. In addition the 3rd and 4th Amendment taken together do form a strong basis as to the inference of Judicial review. Finally, Marshall's specific doctrine was established in 1803 with the Marbury v. Madison case and has not been specifically curtailed by an act of Congress or an Amendment to the Constitution thus leaving it as precedent.

The ruling in this case has done nothing to enforce the 14th Amendment except to state that were any other laws passed regarding the discrimination based on sex then they could be challenged in the courts by citizens and likely be nullified as Unconstitutional. It provides no enforcement or protection under the 14th Amendment. Rather this ruling simply makes it known that the present Supreme Court will likely strike down any law that discriminates against citizens which is fully in keeping with their powers. Enforcement through legislation by Congress is the only way to prevent another legislature from passing another law which discriminates marriage based on sex. The Supreme Court decision does not stop legislatures from passing such laws.

Not particularly a matter of opinion. With the power of judicial review ceded to the Supreme Court they do get to rule on whether a law is Constitutional.

Because the Supreme Court only indicates whether a law is Constitutional or not it does not add specific new legislation/executive orders. It can by ruling a law or an aspect of a law unconstitutional determine the legality of an action (such as abortion/same sex marriage) but does not itself produce legislation regulating or enforcing anything. I would posit that the Fifth section of the 14th Amendment and others like it are aimed at preventing the executive branch from using executive actions and similar tools to enforce those provisions thus allowing the concentration of power within the executive branch.

The issue at work with Kim Davis is that she was refusing to allow any marriage licences to be issued and refused a court order to issue the licences because she is letting her personal religious beliefs interfere with the work of her governmental position. This is similar to a police officer whose religion disallows alcohol preventing people from drinking alcohol though they are not of the same religious beliefs or background. Religious beliefs are fine but because we are a Nation that follows the rule of law she has no basis for refusing to issue marriage licences.

If I can direct your attention to my use of the terms "inferred" and "ceded" when initially discussing judicial review you'll note that I don't attribute the power to the Supreme Court as derived directly from the Constitution. It actually does not specifically state in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. However, the Judiciary Act of 1789 does specifically incorporate the concept in regard to both federal and state statutes. In addition the 3rd and 4th Amendment taken together do form a strong basis as to the inference of Judicial review. Finally, Marshall's specific doctrine was established in 1803 with the Marbury v. Madison case and has not been specifically curtailed by an act of Congress or an Amendment to the Constitution thus leaving it as precedent.

The ruling in this case has done nothing to enforce the 14th Amendment except to state that were any other laws passed regarding the discrimination based on sex then they could be challenged in the courts by citizens and likely be nullified as Unconstitutional. It provides no enforcement or protection under the 14th Amendment. Rather this ruling simply makes it known that the present Supreme Court will likely strike down any law that discriminates against citizens which is fully in keeping with their powers. Enforcement through legislation by Congress is the only way to prevent another legislature from passing another law which discriminates marriage based on sex. The Supreme Court decision does not stop legislatures from passing such laws.

Power of judicial review which is an inferred power of the Supreme Court allows it to strike down laws, treaties, etc. which conflict with a higher authority such as the Constitution or the Amendments. So while Congress does have the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court retains the power to strike down laws that are in contradiction of those same provisions which is what has happened.

Not particularly a matter of opinion. With the power of judicial review ceded to the Supreme Court they do get to rule on whether a law is Constitutional.

Because the Supreme Court only indicates whether a law is Constitutional or not it does not add specific new legislation/executive orders. It can by ruling a law or an aspect of a law unconstitutional determine the legality of an action (such as abortion/same sex marriage) but does not itself produce legislation regulating or enforcing anything. I would posit that the Fifth section of the 14th Amendment and others like it are aimed at preventing the executive branch from using executive actions and similar tools to enforce those provisions thus allowing the concentration of power within the executive branch.

The issue at work with Kim Davis is that she was refusing to allow any marriage licences to be issued and refused a court order to issue the licences because she is letting her personal religious beliefs interfere with the work of her governmental position. This is similar to a police officer whose religion disallows alcohol preventing people from drinking alcohol though they are not of the same religious beliefs or background. Religious beliefs are fine but because we are a Nation that follows the rule of law she has no basis for refusing to issue marriage licences.

If I can direct your attention to my use of the terms "inferred" and "ceded" when initially discussing judicial review you'll note that I don't attribute the power to the Supreme Court as derived directly from the Constitution. It actually does not specifically state in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. However, the Judiciary Act of 1789 does specifically incorporate the concept in regard to both federal and state statutes. In addition the 3rd and 4th Amendment taken together do form a strong basis as to the inference of Judicial review. Finally, Marshall's specific doctrine was established in 1803 with the Marbury v. Madison case and has not been specifically curtailed by an act of Congress or an Amendment to the Constitution thus leaving it as precedent.

The ruling in this case has done nothing to enforce the 14th Amendment except to state that were any other laws passed regarding the discrimination based on sex then they could be challenged in the courts by citizens and likely be nullified as Unconstitutional. It provides no enforcement or protection under the 14th Amendment. Rather this ruling simply makes it known that the present Supreme Court will likely strike down any law that discriminates against citizens which is fully in keeping with their powers. Enforcement through legislation by Congress is the only way to prevent another legislature from passing another law which discriminates marriage based on sex. The Supreme Court decision does not stop legislatures from passing such laws.