Demagogue

If so, then check out this series of posts over at Southern Appeal revolving around Plainsman's argument that the federal government's failure to stem the tide of illegal immigration is a violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

All the posts revolve around the meaning of the term "invasion" and whether illegal immigration and other types of "invasions" are what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

I happen to think that, as a general rule, whenever you have start arguing about literal definitions of words rather than their common sense usage (as in this case, what the word "invasion" meant in 1854) in order to buttress your case, your argument is probably flawed.

It reminds me of a similarly ridiculous disagreement I had with the Curmudgeonly Clerk more than a year ago regarding the meaning of the word "happen" in the Constitution's recess appointment clause. (And just for the record, back then, Plainsman wrote, in regards to William Pryor's recess appointment, that "the Constitution says what it says.")