re: A Judge Has Ruled That Deporting Illegals is Unconstitutional. Lawyers, Explain the Logic

quote:

---

The language is straightforward.

---

the court didn't have much trouble with it.

quote:

---

The historical records that the parties present, supplemented by the additional records that the Court reviewed, demonstrate that at the time of the AEA’s enactment, the plain, ordinary meaning of “invasion” was an entry into the nation’s territory by a military force or an organized, armed force, with the purpose of conquering or obtaining control over territory. In a similar vein, the common usage of “predatory incursion” and, to a lesser degree, “incursion,” referenced a military force or an organized, armed force entering a territory to destroy property, plunder, and harm individuals, with a subsequent retreat from that territory. Although other uses exist for these terms, those rare uses do not represent the ordinary meaning of those terms.

---

quote:

---

That power to proclaim an invasion or predatory incursion is given to the president.

---

The courts define those terms.

quote:

---

No court appears to have applied the Baker analysis to the AEA. Based on the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the AEA, as well as the principles enumerated in Baker, the Court concludes that while it may not adjudicate the veracity of the factual statements in the Proclamation, or the propriety of the steps taken by the President as to Venezuelan aliens and TdA members, the Court retains the authority to construe the AEA’s terms and determine whether the announced basis for the Proclamation properly invokes the statute.

---

quote:

---

Consistent with this conclusion, the Second Circuit during the 1940’s construed various provisions of the AEA. See, e.g., U S ex rel D’Esquiva v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 903, 905 (2d Cir. 1943) (determining the meaning of “citizen” and “native”: “The use by Congress of the four words ‘natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects’ indicated that each word is to have a significant and different meaning”); U.S. ex rel. Zdunic v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 858, 860 (2d Cir. 1943) (“The ultimate issue for determination is whether the relator is a ‘native, citizen, denizen, or subject’ of Germany. The meaning of those words as used in the statute, [ ] presents a question of law.”); U.S. ex rel. Gregoire v. Watkins, 164 F.2d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 1947) (considering “whether the relator is a ‘native’ of Germany within the meaning” of the AEA); U.S. ex rel. Kessler v. Watkins, 163 F.2d 140, 142 (2d Cir. 1947) (concluding that the meaning of threatened “invasion” or “predatory incursion” did not require “active hostilities”). And the Court is unaware of any judicial authority declining to determine the meaning of the AEA’s terms based on the political question doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Baker does not require a different conclusion. It is true that the Constitution ascribes authority and responsibility for foreign policy and national security to the Legislative and Executive branches. And “[m]atters intimately related to foreign policy and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention.” Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 292 (1981); see also Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988) (“nless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.”); Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 91 (1953) (declining to exercise judicial review over the President’s decision not to commission Orloff as an Army officer: “Whether Orloff deserves appointment is not for judges to say”). But construing the language of the AEA does not require courts to adjudicate the wisdom of the President’s foreign policy and national security decisions. [u]Determining what conduct constitutes an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” for purposes of the AEA is distinct from ascertaining whether such events have in fact occurred or are being threatened. The former turns on applying accepted principles of statutory construction; the latter on analyzing factual intelligence and data, including some to which the Executive Branch possesses unique access, and applying independent judgment and weighing competing priorities. Courts routinely engage in the former, but are ill-equipped to second guess the President’s decisions as to the latter. This distinction also refutes Respondents’ contention that applying judicial review would rely on “no manageable standards.” On the contrary, courts regularly apply known canons of construction to determine the meaning of statutory language.

---

quote:

---

That doesn't change the language of the AEA, which unequivocally gives the president has the authority to declare an "invasion or predatory incursion". If a judge wants to overturn the AEA itself and say that it's unconstitutional, that should be the ruling. This judge didn't say that the act is unconstituional, he said that Trump couldn't call this a predatory incursion.

---

What is interesting, to me at least, is that the Judge's (Texas judge in the AEA case) ruling takes everything Trump said in his Proclamation invoking the AEA as true - except for the declaration that the U.S. has been "invaded" or is suffereing from a "predatory incursion." His ruling was not based on facts on the ground, so to speak, but rather the language and facts Trump spelled out in the Proclamation which the AEA requires.
So the ruling was that Trump has not described an invasion or predatory incursion that would satisfy invoking the AEA.

It is a measured move by the Judge - certainly far more measured than some of the crap we have seen from other District court Judges. Essentially, the ruling against Trump can be seen as a lack of notice - as the Act requires a public proclamation of the invasion or predatory incursion. His proclamation failed to do so, according to this Court.

The language of the AEA itself:

quote:

---

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.

---

I am not sure if the Original Post was referring to this Texas AEA case, but his case did not rule that deporting illegals was unconstitutional. It ruled that Trump has not complied with the statute.

quote:

---

Bunk and I are both in favor of deporting illegals.

We just believe it should be done in the proper, legal manner, and understand the potential consequences of ignoring limits on federal power.

---

Here is your quote I responded to.


I asked what the proper legal manner was.



You say to follow the laws.



I am asking you what laws were broken.



It's not that difficult.

quote:

---

What laws were broken?

---

quote:

---

Following the law and not [b]taking actions in violation of the law, court orders, or outside the legislative or Constitutional authority of the Executive[/b].

---

The bold and underlined part is the applicable part.

I imagine that's why you curated it out to create the straw man.

The more relevant questions are:

1. Did the admin take actions in violation of its legislative authority?
2. Did the admin take actions in violation of its Constitutional authority?
3. Did the admin take actions in violations of court orders?

quote:

---

This topic has been discussed and debated many times here. I agree with you 100%, but save yourself the effort and frustration of trying to persuade some. All you'll get is pages and pages of mumbo jumbo circular rebuttals.

---

You mean language from cases?

quote:

---

Following the law and not taking actions in violation of the law, court orders, or outside the legislative or Constitutional authority of the Executive.

---

Are y’all talking about Biden?

quote:

---

I don't think courts will agree.

---

And the courts continue to follow the path the medical industry took over the Covid era. It's a shame.

I assume that you are quoting the lower court ruling. The Supreme Court ruling in 1948 disagreed.

quote:

---

Accordingly, we hold that full responsibility for the just exercise of this great power may validly be left where the Congress has constitutionally placed it -- on the President of the United States. The Founders, in their wisdom, made him not only the Commander in Chief, but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs.

---

In that case, the district court ruled that we were not in a "declared war" which was the context of that case. The SC said that was not their call to make.

quote:

---

These are matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.

---

The act doesn't limit it's use to times of declared war and the Supreme Court found that its invocation is a political decision the merits of which are left to the interpretation of the executive branch.

quote:

---

A Judge Has Ruled That Deporting Illegals is Unconstitutio

---

His ruling unconstitutional, so ignore and keep doing business. A judge cannot change laws or order officials to ignore the laws.

quote:

---

Only Congress can declare.

---

Pretty sure Biden declared war on the US with his open border policies.