There are no illegal immigrants in America

[Undertoad]

If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?

My dictionary lists the first definition of invasion as...

invasion: The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.


If I could get my hands on a Black's Law Dictionary from 1891, I'd look up the definition at that time since it's probably the most accurate and most likely matches this one.

We can also read about the discussions made by the founders when they created this clause. It was referring to invasions from British or other army troops.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

If I could get my hands on a Black's Law Dictionary from 1891, I'd look up the definition at that time since it's probably the most accurate and most likely matches this one.

Nothing in the Constitution about a law dictionary being the arbiter.

We can also read about the discussions made by the founders when they created this clause. It was referring to invasions from British or other army troops.

Nothing in the Constitution about using the (highly subjective) inner thinking of the founders (which ones??) when trying to decide how the Constitution should be applied.

And so the question remains: If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?

[busterb]

Forget the stupid part!

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And so the question remains: If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?

No document should have to bear the burden of settling disputes over definitions of words in the way you are suggesting.

Let me explain: If I have a contract stating that I will be paid $100 dollars to paint a fence, I can't turn around and claim that I should be paid $100 because I pissed on the fence. I can't say that the contract has to specify that painting the fence means painting it and not pissing on it, shitting on it, sneezing on it, etc.

I'm not being sneaky by signing this contract, then pissing on the fence and demanding payment. Because that's stupid.

Words mean things. Invasion means invasion.

[glatt]

Legal briefs and judicial rulings put definitions of key terms and phrases in the front of them all the time.

[Flint]

Yes, but do they use imaginary definitions?

Or, more to the point, unless they state that a word means what it actually means, can you later claim that it means something that it clearly doesn't and never has?

Does my fence painting contract have to specifically state that I will not be paid for shitting on the ground next to the fence, because "shitting next to" does not mean "painting"?

[glatt]

I don't think so, but have you ever read a contract? Most of them go on for pages, attempting to cover as many situations as possible. Some are truly ridiculous.

Edit: And a fence painting contract will probably go into some detail about what level of work is required. How much scraping. How much cleaning. Method of application, how many coats, conditions under which the paint will be applied, etc.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Flint

No document should have to bear the burden of settling disputes over definitions of words in the way you are suggesting.

Let me explain: If I have a contract stating that I will be paid $100 dollars to paint a fence, I can't turn around and claim that I should be paid $100 because I pissed on the fence. I can't say that the contract has to specify that painting the fence means painting it and not pissing on it, shitting on it, sneezing on it, etc.

I'm not being sneaky by signing this contract, then pissing on the fence and demanding payment. Because that's stupid.

Words mean things. Invasion means invasion.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So what you're really trying to tell me is this: since 1952, perhaps longer,...

Around 1920 we started regulating instead of just shooting them.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

...Words mean things. Invasion means invasion.

Like someone's house being invaded by roaches or the "British invasion"? What does the word "arms" mean, as in "the right to bear arms"?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What does the word "arms" mean, as in "the right to bear arms"?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nothing in the Constitution about a law dictionary being the arbiter.

Nothing in the Constitution about using the (highly subjective) inner thinking of the founders (which ones??) when trying to decide how the Constitution should be applied.

And so the question remains: If we disagree over what invasion means, does the Constitution say anything about who decides whose meaning is the correct one?

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.