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

Common sense has died.

RIP, CS.

quote:

---

The district court in the most recent ruling engaged in such "questions of interpretation"

---

No, they didn't.

quote:

---

we have held that

quote:

---

an individual

---

subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.”

---

What they said is that "an individual subject to detention and removal" is entitled to "judicial review" (the SC included those quotation marks around judicial review). You have broadened that to mean that the invocation of the act is subject to interpretation. If the judge wanted to to rule that the entire act is unconstitutional, that's their sole course of action. If the judge wants to make "political" decisions about the existence of a predatory incursion, that's the president's decision.

quote:

---

What they said is that "an individual subject to detention and removal" is entitled to "judicial review" (the SC included those quotation marks around judicial review). You have broadened that to mean that the invocation of the act is subject to interpretation

---

No

You're focusing on the wrong part

quote:

---

Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163-164, 172, n. 17.

---

The Supreme Court "broadened that" with other language to to male the act is subject to interpretation

quote:

---

he Supreme Court "broadened that" with other language to to male the act is subject to interpretation

---

That statement involved an individual. Any law is subject to constitutional challenge. But the SC in Ludecke ruled that the AEA gives the president the power over political judgment as to the existence of a declared war, not judges. Since the AEA is broader than declared war, that also includes the existence of invasion and predatory incursion which present a danger to the public safety. They specifically said that judges "have neither technical competence nor official responsibility" in matters of political judgment.

There's no way to deny that the judge in this case is attempting to subjugate the president's judgment re existence of a predatory incursion to the judgment of the court.

quote:

---

the power over political judgment as to the existence of a declared war, not judges.

---

Which has no relevance here. The recent ruling permitting interpretation of AEA relied on a citation from the same case (see my quoted language)

quote:

---

Since the AEA is broader than declared war, that also includes the existence of invasion and predatory incursion which present a danger to the public safety

---

No. That language has never been interpreted and this recent jurisprudential is literally the first crack

Deciding if there is a declared war is easy, which is why the issue was so easily disposed in what little jurisprudence exists.

Now we are into the weeds.

quote:

---

Need congress to act and pass a bill that defines due process for deporting illegals as only requiring an administrative finding of fact that the person is in the country illegally. get judges out of the loop. Of course congress is useless so thats never going to happen

---

Good answer. But yet again, your last sentence seems to tell the story. #SAD

quote:

---

I am not against deporting, I just thought there are already procedures for it.

---

Well there are “procedures” for immigration and asylum claims into the U.S. too. How’d that go?

quote:

---

What did Congress intend the purpose of the public Proclamation to be in order to invoke the Act. Was it intended as a limitation on President's power? Letting Congress, for instance, know the specifics so it can decide if it wants to take action? Or something else?

---

War has certainly changed since the passage of the Act. IMHO, if there is a declaration of war then broad power exists. “Predatary incursion” was meant to broaden the executive power, and included types of malicious destruction of property that we would today call terrorism. There has been discussion of this on other forums related to Pickering and his letter to Hamilton discussing the sufficiency of the militia when dealing with the French Founders Online

The best outcome would be for Congress to clarify with statutes that broaden or shrink executive discretion within the statute. Absent that guidance, we get in “the zone of twilight” The court could try to split the baby by saying that “predatory incursion” is a determination for the executive, but a IJ hearing is still required. Nevertheless, its a lot easier to rule based on a statute then Executives acting in their perceived authority.

The stickier issue is when deportation occurs on someone that alleges they are a citizen. Then the due process requirement would be higher. It would take time and more than just IJ hires to dispose of all those cases in Article III courts

quote:

---

It has been interpreted, quite clearly. Ludecke unequivocally stated that judges are not given power to make political decisions about the invocation of the AEA. If the existence of "declared war" is a political judgment, it would be quite a contortion to now rule that existence of an "invasion or predatory incursion"

---

This is almost certainly the reason the Judge framed his opinion the way he did. he understands and agrees with that.

I have an easy solution for that. If you’re not a white Christian you’re illegal you have no business in America get out goodbye