...the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.” But, is that an exclusive definition of the
term? It certainly seems to be! Nothing in the language of sec. 101 suggests that the definition is non-exclusive. After all, the provision uses a restrictive
term, “means,” not a non-restrictive
term such as “includes.” Black-letter principles of statutory interpretation thus indicate that only the five services qualify as US “armed forces.” Orr then offers what I find his most problematic argument, concerning the interpretation of the AUMF: There is a fairly...