I gotta tell you that the argument over labels and definitions has a lot to do with the heart of the battle we are in. It’s Leftist lies, believed as you point out by many on the Right, versus the truth.
It is a battle for the hearts and minds of the American People and “labels and definitions” are a key factor.
Two simple examples, two of many. One is the use of the word “immigration.” The ACTUAL debate is over ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION but the Lying Left drops the word “illegal” and actively attempts to incorporate “immigration” into the lexicon and confuse the issue. Confusion is one of the Left’s most powerful tools.
Another example of the need for precision in what we’re talking about to combat Leftist confusion is the use of the word “globalization”. The ACTUAL debate is over POLITICAL/GOVERNMENTAL GLOBALIZATION which is the blurring of our political borders and the weakening of our national sovereignty. But “political/governmental” gets dropped, so just about anything international (private trade, the internet, private international phone calls, etc.) potentially becomes a candidate for “globalization” and confusion is off and running and the Left wins with confusion.
So precision and understanding in the use of labels are definitions and extremely important. You have to be ready to challenge the Left or the duped Right at the very outset of presumptions based on faulty,confused concepts or definitions. Once they get past that threshold without a challenge, they usually have you.
I totally agree. I insist on labels being defined. I don't care so much, in correspondence, what the definition is, but I find it important to find out or agree on what the definition is.
In our discussion, I'd say your definition of "constitutional" is "in accord with the constitution, legitimate, well justified." The law and order definition is "asserted by SCOTUS, no matter how rotten the rationale."
I like your other examples too, immigration vs. illegal immigration, and "globalization" (which is also an internationalist crony issue).
The left and politicians successfully use labels to avoid discussing the issues and the proposed remedies. See the gun control manipulation currently under way, and the buzz phrase "due process." I reject the contention that if "due process" is present, the system is fair or in accord with the constitution. I've seen too many varieties of "due process," some of which deny the accused the right to view the evidence (which is exactly what is proposed for no-fly/no-buy) to accept some undefined "due process" as adequate. But the press and the politicians, well, the message is "if there is due process, nobody will be wrongfully denied." Yeah, right, for how long, at what cost, and who has and what are the burdens of proof? Crickets.