Words are really important things. Sometimes they are used for levity, as in telling a joke, or turned into Spoonerism type expressions such as, “Pardon me, I got my tang tongueled up”. However, most of the time, words are used to convey more serious meanings. Examples of the serious usage of words would be those written in a legal contract, sworn in a court of law or even when one chooses to say, “I love you”.
There have been in the past, and are now, some notable changing, twisting and ignoring of words by those in our government and throughout our society in general. For a long time, Old Bill paid scant attention to the areas of life where this is true. There have now been found so many of those occurrences that a small volume could herein be offered.
At this time, only one instance from current events will be tendered. The crisis at the border involving the mass influx of children, criminals and possibly terrorists has developed from the decades long disregard of words and their meanings. Those words are contained in the US Constitution.
Article IV, Section 4 states (emphases added), “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”. The powers that be have chosen to limit the meaning of “invasion” to, “a hostile entrance or armed attack”. This is a true but convenient limitation of the meaning of the word. Those who choose to shirk their Constitutional obligation simply ignore some of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary’s complete definition.
They who wish their interpretation of “invasion” to go unquestioned are relying on a general public that has not, will not or cannot read a more complete meaning. In addition to the narrow view preferred by those in power, the definition also includes, “an inroad of any kind…” and “the penetration and gradual occupation of an area by a population group of different socioeconomic status or racial or cultural origin…”
What, then, should have been done low these many decades, and what should be done even now? Well, let’s see what the Constitution has to say about that.
In Article I, section 8, we find that (again, emphases added), “Congress shall have power to… provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions…”. We note here that the President is not given that authority, only Congress. The President is given authority over the militia only after Congress calls them forth.
It is further noted that there is no restriction preventing the federal government from using other methods of compliance, but the Constitution requires that the federal government shall prevent states from being invaded. No additional “law” has ever been necessary to protect the borders of the US. If alternate approaches to enforcement prove to be inadequate, the military method has always been there as a Constitutional obligation. Repeating, those who would shirk the responsibility of their oath of office are successful only because the schools have failed to correctly inform many generations of citizens.
A final note of opinion: The heart breaks for the plight of those who would risk death to come to this country seeking relief from poverty. The hard fact is that the US has a rapidly increasing debt, and we are told 50 million of our own people are living below our “poverty line”. We can ill afford to accommodate millions more people in such condition. At some point, the responsibility must lie within their own country.