**Title: The Meaning of “Invasion” in the Constitution: A Constitutional Theory Perspective**
**Introduction**
A recent debate has arisen regarding the definition of “invasion” under the Constitution, particularly in the context of illegal migration and drug smuggling across the southern border. This issue is currently being litigated in two cases before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Constitutional theorists Larry Solum and Mark Tushnet have provided insights on how constitutional theory can help clarify the meaning of “invasion.”
**Tushnet’s Perspective**
In a blog post, Tushnet explores the term “invasion” as used in the Constitution and in contemporary conservative discourse. He raises questions about whether the term’s meaning has evolved beyond its original definition and whether it can be applied to situations such as illegal migration. Tushnet highlights the importance of interpreting constitutional terms within a reasonable framework.
**Historical Definitions**
Tushnet references historical definitions of “invasion” from Samuel Johnson’s and Noah Webster’s dictionaries, which emphasize organized armed attacks as the primary meaning. He suggests that the term’s interpretation should be context-specific and considers examples like the September 11 attacks and the ISIS-inspired attack at Fort Hood.
**Interpretation**
Tushnet argues that the meaning of “invasion” in the Constitution is limited to organized armed attacks, as supported by the Founding-era evidence. He emphasizes the importance of considering the context in which the term appears in clauses and articles to determine its true meaning.
**Solum’s Perspective**
Solum’s post delves deeper into the originalist perspective on interpreting constitutional terms, emphasizing the importance of analyzing entire clauses and articles in context. He aligns with Tushnet’s views on the significance of context in determining the meaning of “invasion.”
**Conclusion**
The debate over the meaning of “invasion” in the Constitution highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of constitutional terms. Both Tushnet and Solum advocate for a contextual approach to interpretation, focusing on the specific wording of clauses and articles. This analysis suggests that “invasion” is limited to organized armed attacks and does not encompass issues like illegal migration or drug smuggling. The ongoing legal cases and scholarly discussions surrounding this topic underscore the complexity of constitutional interpretation and the importance of considering historical context and original intent.
Source link
