- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Stephen Miller rejects DC judges legal authority over national security.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 9:59 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 9:59 am
Stephen Miller explains, based on Constitutional Law, why the district court judge has no jurisdiction over national security decisions made by the Executive Branch.
By Trump invoking "The Alien Enemies Act" to expell the gang members from US soil this becomes a national security issue. A district judge has zero jurisdiction over issues involving national security. It's really simple. Black and white.
By Trump invoking "The Alien Enemies Act" to expell the gang members from US soil this becomes a national security issue. A district judge has zero jurisdiction over issues involving national security. It's really simple. Black and white.
14
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:02 am to lake chuck fan
Miller never disappoints. 
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:02 am to lake chuck fan
Wouldn’t Stephen Miller have been the guy to tell Trump admin attorneys to proceed with the deportation?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:02 am to lake chuck fan
OK, so is there any limit on what the president can declare a national security matter and act unilaterally? The intel community constantly commits abuses, then covers it up under this concept all the time.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:03 am to lake chuck fan
Im seriously shocked that CNN or any other "News" outlet has Stephen Miller on anymore. That guy is an absolute killer. He super sharp and really seems to enjoy taking libs to task.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:04 am to lake chuck fan
These judges are treading on real thin ice
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:05 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
OK, so is there any limit on what the president can declare a national security matter and act unilaterally?
Likely a gray area, but when it is acted upon, you better be ready to explain why.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:13 am to lake chuck fan
CNN anchor, "If you didn't have to follow the judges order, why did you?"
It's a good rhetorical question.
The issue here is that Steven Miller is trying to substantially provide a legal basis for the actions of the Executive by being respectful of the Judiciary. Could he and the Trump administration basically tell the Judicial branch to frick off? Yes. But that is not a good long term strategy. A better strategy is to get the Judicial Branch to come around to the Executive's way of thinking. That is a MUCH more substantive approach and codifies executive actions for the future. Stephen Millers approach in this CNN segment was very smart.
It's a good rhetorical question.
The issue here is that Steven Miller is trying to substantially provide a legal basis for the actions of the Executive by being respectful of the Judiciary. Could he and the Trump administration basically tell the Judicial branch to frick off? Yes. But that is not a good long term strategy. A better strategy is to get the Judicial Branch to come around to the Executive's way of thinking. That is a MUCH more substantive approach and codifies executive actions for the future. Stephen Millers approach in this CNN segment was very smart.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:13 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
OK, so is there any limit on what the president can declare a national security matter and act unilaterally
This isn't unilateral. It's based in a law passed by Congress that authorizing the President to remove illegals that are deemed to be a national security risk. Since it's a matter of national security, the Executive branch is within its constitutional rights to make these determinations.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:15 am to Tigergreg
quote:
Likely a gray area, but when it is acted upon, you better be ready to explain why.
Miller does explain why, in a very simple, easy to understand manner. That's why I posted the video.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:16 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
OK, so is there any limit on what the president can declare a national security matter and act unilaterally? The intel community constantly commits abuses, then covers it up under this concept all the time.
Yet you seem perfectly happy that there are no checks and balances over what a tyrannical judiciary can do.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:18 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
OK, so is there any limit on what the president can declare a national security matter and act unilaterally? The intel community constantly commits abuses, then covers it up under this concept all the time.
There is no limit. It's how Barack Obama got away with killing an American teenager without due process.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 10:23 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:20 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
OK, so is there any limit on what the president can declare a national security matter and act unilaterally?
The courts have given the executive tremendous leeway in what is "national security". Remember the MAL "classified documents" case? Jack in his indictment never claimed there was classified documents in Trump's possession at MAL. He said they were "national security" documents with classified markings and since they were declared as "national security" by the National Security Division of the DOJ by fiat, they became "national security" documents and the DOJ became the true owner of the documents, not Trump. Judge Cannon disagreed but did still gave deference to the DOJ upon appeal. The 11 Circuit sided with the National Security Division of the DOJ and they retained possession of all the MAL documents.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:21 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
This isn't unilateral.
The President's actions are.
quote:
Since it's a matter of national security, the Executive branch is within its constitutional rights to make these determinations.
So, no limit, is your answer to Bunk's question.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:23 am to lake chuck fan
I hope the left keeps this shite up. This is a losing battle for them.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:24 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Under Miller's interpretation there is no limit.
In this case Miller is invoking the The Alien Enemies Act. It provides three criteria and only one criterion has to be met. Miller believes the Executive Branch meets all three criteria in this case.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:24 am to lake chuck fan
Even Grok says this judge is out of his lane.
SFP-knows best
Hank- says all who don't see this righteous Judge, have low IQ's
I appreciate that Miller called the Judge an outright moron.
SFP-knows best
Hank- says all who don't see this righteous Judge, have low IQ's
I appreciate that Miller called the Judge an outright moron.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:24 am to lake chuck fan
The great Alan Dershowitz thinks that the Trump administration was too cute and shouldn't have used this particular Act. I find legal strategy boring so I kind of chuned out, but what he said seems convincing to me
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 10:26 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:quote:
This isn't unilateral.
The President's actions are.
How is it unilateral when the Legislative Branch provided the Executive with the authority?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:25 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Even Grok says this judge is out of his lane.
When you feed Grok a factual scenario presuming legal and proper use of a particular statute, which ignore that this discussion if specifically over whether or not the use of the statute was legal and proper.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News