Could my employer claim that "dollars" refers to "pennies" and pay me $1, because they feel like it and the contract didn't specifically say "dollars means dollars"?

Or they could just say that "pay" means "not pay" and not pay me at all.

Most painting contracts will stipulate what sort of paint will be used during the process.

I understand your point Flint and I agree with it in theory, but this whole debate is ridiculous just like comparing pissing on a fence to painting it. I'm sure you agree.

In the explicit meaning of the word 'invade', it refers to anyone entering anywhere without permission however, the implied meaning of the word invasion is to enter a place with malicious intent. Very few immigrants enter anywhere with malicious intent. Usually they're trying to escape from somewhere worse.

Of course, as the proper definition is provided here:

Oooh Mr Norris, what a big 'gun' you have there! ;)

It's all moot because the Constitution is not a contract. It's the founding document of the Government.

Nevertheless, all contracts face this same problem; they fail in things like terms, and differences have to be settled somehow. Some contracts actually say who will decide whether the contract has been met.

I can't take it anymore. I have to come out from behind the couch. I clicked on one of classic mans links to read a little about immigration law. The first sentence I read was this:

The United States has a long history of immigration laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) with some major, and many minor, changes continues to be the basic immigration law of the country. The most significant amendment to the INA was in 1965 which abolished the natural origin provisions, and established a new quota system.

So what you're really trying to tell me is this: since 1952, perhaps longer, our congress has been absolutely ignoring the constitution on this issue, and no one has been able to point this fact out the the Congress? If some one has made a point about these unconstitutional laws congress has seen fit for over 50 years to ignore it? (I'm not gonna start with the Alien Act of 1798, which would mean that there is some sort of super conspiracy in play, probably including the Masons)

So, the next thing I read is this:

Congress has total and complete authority over immigration. Power of the President is limited to policies on refugees. Unless the issue concerns the rights of aliens to constitutional protections the courts have rarely intruded.

This would lead me to believe that the courts are in on some kind of conspiracy to get around our constitution on this issue. (Just like congress!!) Or perhaps Radar could be, well wrong would be a strong word to use, so I'll use the word erring.

Of course this is only one source of info, and it is from the Cornell University Law School. I'm sure they have their own agenda, right? Especially when they post a link to this section of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

This question of naturalization and immigration. The definition of naturalizaion is: Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

or as Webster puts it: 1: to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship.

I can't really see any other way to interpret this then this is how people immigrate legally to the United States. They are naturalized, and admitted as citizens of the U.S.

I have to admit, I didn't know much about the libertarian party until now. The more I learn the less I like. This has been a useful discussion for me.

The widely accepted meaning of the word "invasion" pertains to invading armies and does not apply to a flow of peaceful immigrants. I reject any claim that the term invasion can be applied toward peaceful immigrants coming to America to build a better life for themselves and their families as so many other generations of immigrants have done in the past.

We don't need to read the writings of the founders when they discussed this. We don't need to look it up in a law dictionary. Invasion means armed military forces and that's it.

First opening a hotdog stand isn't my "life's ambition" but there's certainly nothing wrong with that or with running for political office. I guess you are more satisfied with your job blowing truckers for speed at rest stops.

Nice Johnny Dangerously reference. ;)

Exactly. An invasion means an invading armies and has never ever been used to describe peaceful immigrants regardless of their number. This includes the Irish, Dutch, German, English, etc.

The Constitution is a contract and the foundation of our government. It strictly limits the powers of the federal government to keep the majority of power with the states or the people.

When the founders said "invasion" they were using the commonly accepted term meaning invading armies and did not use it to describe a flow of peaceful immigrants. This part of the Constitution does not grant any power whatsoever to the federal government over immigration.

Nor does the necessary & proper clause, nor does the migration and importation of slaves, and nor does the power to make rules concerning naturalization.

I suggest what ever your narrow mind tells you keep that kind of shit to yourself. I might be old and in MS. But I might just be back to your cock sucking state one day. I hope you run for office again so I can set up a website and post this shit. BY MF!

Around 1920 we started regulating instead of just shooting them.

I'm saying it's been going on a lot longer than 1952.

The courts are very much in a conspiracy. They routinely rule directly against the Constitution when they deem it to be in the interests of government to do so. They are granted no such authority by the Constitution. Judges are hired and paid by the government and when they rule against the expansion of governmental powers, they face losing their jobs.

Ask Cornell University to provide the actual clause of the Constitution that grants power over immigration to the federal government or even to provide the part of the Constitution that allows government to have "implied" powers. I can provide the part that PROHIBITS the government from having implied powers and from doing anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, more than 80% of what our federal government does is unconstitutional.

If you can't see it, you need to clean your glasses. Immigration is the process by which an immigrant becomes a citizen and has nothing to do with how they immigrate here in the first place.

Most people who dislike the Libertarian Party or libertarian philosophy do so because they really don't know much about politics or they believe government should tell us what to do with our money, our body, etc. and otherwise be our nanny. They have no confidence in the ability of regular people to run their own lives in the way that is best for themselves without harming others. That's up to you. I am of the opinion that government isn't here to define our rights or to limit them and that any such laws are illegitimate. You don't have a right to go through life without being offended, but others do have a right to freedom of expression and the freedom to travel anonymously. This is the opposite position of that held by the founders.

How can you be so sure? How can you describe every type of "invasion" that ever happened? Who is the Final Arbiter of the question of what "invasion" could mean?