Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar
I'll tell you who the final arbiter is....and it's not the Supreme Court. The final arbiter is "We the People" and "We the people" granted specific powers to the federal government and the definition of the word "invasion" used by "We the people" refers to an armed or hostile invasion force....invading armies.
That's what it's always meant and attempts to twist the meaning of the words 218 years later doesn't fly.
|
As if the framers could ostensibly know the precise nature of all types of "invasion" 218 years into the future. As if they could even possibly predict that 100% open borders present horrible problems that could harm the general welfare of a nation. As if they wouldn't mention it in the C if they did expect it would happen.
If it is "we the people" you are arguing for rule by "the people" 14 generations ago, which won't hold, or rule by modern day public in Democracy, which I know you don't like. It's not instructive to you that if we implemented the law as you envision it, the people would throw it away and develop a new Constitution.
The C isn't a suicide pact. The law can't work that way. The idea that it does is superstition on your behalf.
And you continue to ignore the sections of the C that you don't like. Who decides the meaning of "invasion"? It's right there in the C, if you care to read it.