- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: District Judge has standing over the CIC removing terrorists from US soil? Explain why.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:they are terrorists
What if the admin improperly used the statutory authority to designate them terrorists? Would that change your question at all?
0
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:19 am to TBoy
quote:
That is how Congress can actually do something.
Your Dem party would lock step vote against it. You would come a running to support them.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:19 am to lionward2014
quote:
False. Congress has not declared war since 1942. Which makes all of our foreign policy stupidy the last 80 years so much more frustrating.
Not sure why you say that - it is easy to look up the several times Congress has authorized war since 1942. The War on Terror being the last one, I believe.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:20 am to Arkaea79
quote:
If there is guaranteed "due process" for illegals then why throughout the last several decades do most illegals get deported without judicial reviews? Don't be dishonest.
Define judicial review?
Section 235 of the INA lays out the process in which the government can use expedieted proceedings to remove someone. Almost everyone else is placed into Section 240 removal proceedings where they are able to present a form of relief before an immigration judge. Now if you want to debate if an administrative law judge is "judicial review" in the sense that they arent' Article 3 judges we can, but in the lay use of those words they are getting judicial review.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:22 am to JimEverett
quote:
Not sure why you say that - it is easy to look up the several times Congress has authorized war since 1942. The War on Terror being the last one, I believe.
quote:
The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has declared war on 11 occasions, including its first declaration of war with Great Britain in 1812. Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II. Since that time it has agreed to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations and oversight.
US Senate Page on War Declarations
Either the US Senate website is wrong or you should have easily been able to look it up.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:23 am to TBoy
quote:
We are not at war.
Currently we are at war. The war on terror. It’s been a thing for 24 years.
quote:
We have not been invaded.
Our country has been invaded by cartels and gang members who should not be here. They are illegally here, currently breaking the law.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:23 am to Arkaea79
quote:Can you read Standard American English?
It’s not false. Histrionics are not a substitute for reality. If you call any illegal entry into the US an invasion, then the US has been under invasion constantly for a hundred years. In that case the President always has War Powers. That is ridiculous. "Hundreds of years"???
He clearly picked "100 years" intentionally. There was no such animal as "illegal immigration" until about 100 years ago, when the first statutes limiting immigration were passed by Congress.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:24 am to Arkaea79
quote:
If there is guaranteed "due process" for illegals then why throughout the last several decades do most illegals get deported without judicial reviews? Don't be dishonest.
All aliens have due process before removal. However, for an alien who entered without lawful status, the burden of proof is on the alien to prove that they were here lawfully. It's typically a very short hearing. Deportation of a lawfully admitted alien is different and requires that the government prove the reason for deportation. the burdens of proof are as follows:
quote:
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8
Burdens of proof in removal proceedings.
(a) Deportable aliens. A respondent charged with deportability shall be found to be removable if the Service proves by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is deportable as charged.
(b) Arriving aliens. In proceedings commenced upon a respondent's arrival in the United States or after the revocation or expiration of parole, the respondent must prove that he or she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted to the United States and is not inadmissible as charged.
(c) Aliens present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. In the case of a respondent charged as being in the United States without being admitted or paroled, the Service must first establish the alienage of the respondent. Once alienage has been established, unless the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is lawfully in the United States pursuant to a prior admission, the respondent must prove that he or she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted to the United States and is not inadmissible as charged.
(d) Relief from removal. The respondent shall have the burden of establishing that he or she is eligible for any requested benefit or privilege and that it should be granted in the exercise of discretion. If the evidence indicates that one or more of the grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply, the alien shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such grounds do not apply.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:25 am to AggieHank86
quote:
He clearly picked "100 years" intentionally. There was no such animal as "illegal immigration" until about 100 years ago, when the first statutes limiting immigration were passed by Congress.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:26 am to lionward2014
I am not sure who writes the Senate webpage, but they re dead wrong. At best they are playing semantics. What is the difference between a Congressional act authorizing war and a Congressional act authorizing the use of military force?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:26 am to SlayTime
This is The Smoking Gun that will reenforce Trumps invocation of the The alien enemies act
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:28 am to Penrod
War doesn’t have to be declared to invoke it, per usual you are on the wrong side but carry on
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:29 am to TBoy
quote:
We are not at war. We have not been invaded.
Wrong. This is why these powerful cartels and foreign criminal organizations were labeled terrorists groups. We have been at war with terrorist organizations since 2001. These men invaded the U.S. illegally and belong to a group labeled a terrorist organization so the Alien Enemies Act applies
You would be correct if these were simply Hispanic men here illegally working on a construction site. They weren’t.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:34 am to JimEverett
quote:
What is the difference between a Congressional act authorizing war and a Congressional act authorizing the use of military force?
I knew this answer by heart at one point, but forgot the exact details. According to ChatGPT:
quote:
The key difference between a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and a Congressional Declaration of War lies in their scope, formality, and legal implications:
1. Declaration of War
A formal act by Congress, explicitly stating that the U.S. is at war with a named enemy.
The last time Congress officially declared war was during World War II (against Japan, Germany, and others).
Found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, giving Congress the exclusive power to declare war.
Triggers a full wartime legal framework, affecting things like the draft, war production, and international treaties.
2. Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
A less formal but legally binding resolution by Congress that allows the President to use military force without declaring war.
Typically grants the President broad discretion to conduct military operations.
Recent examples include:
2001 AUMF (against those responsible for 9/11, used for operations in Afghanistan and beyond).
2002 AUMF (for the Iraq War).
Does not necessarily lead to total war but allows sustained military action.
Summary:
A Declaration of War is a formal and rare action that puts the U.S. in a state of war.
An AUMF is a more flexible, modern tool used to authorize military action without a full declaration of war.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:48 am to monsterballads
Let’s expand on “we’re not at war”
The U.S. is actively involved in several ongoing military engagements and interventions, often classified as part of the broader “War on Terror” or as support for allied forces in civil conflicts.
These engagements typically involve counterterrorism operations, airstrikes, and the presence of U.S. troops, but they do not meet the classic definition of a declared war between sovereign nations.
Currently, the U.S. is engaged in military activities in at least four conflicts:
• Yemeni Civil War: The U.S. provides logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition and conducts operations against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, including drone strikes and occasional direct military actions. Recent events, such as Houthi attacks on U.S. shipping assets in the Red Sea, have prompted defensive military responses.
• Somali Civil War: Since 2007, the U.S. has conducted airstrikes and deployed special forces to target al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group, in support of the Somali government and African Union forces.
• Syrian Civil War: The U.S. maintains a military presence in northeastern Syria, primarily to combat the Islamic State (ISIS) alongside the Syrian Democratic Forces, though this occurs without the consent of the Syrian government, complicating its legal status.
• Gaza Conflict: While not directly fighting, the U.S. provides significant military aid and support to Israel, which is engaged in conflict with Hamas and other groups, and has conducted defensive operations in the region, such as intercepting attacks on U.S. assets.
Additionally, U.S. troops remain in Iraq to counter ISIS remnants, and the country supports Ukraine against Russia through extensive military aid, though no U.S. forces are in combat there.
These operations stem from authorizations like the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allows action against terrorist groups without a formal war declaration.
In short, while the U.S. is not in a formally declared war, it is far from a state of complete peace, with ongoing military involvement in multiple regions as of today.
The U.S. is actively involved in several ongoing military engagements and interventions, often classified as part of the broader “War on Terror” or as support for allied forces in civil conflicts.
These engagements typically involve counterterrorism operations, airstrikes, and the presence of U.S. troops, but they do not meet the classic definition of a declared war between sovereign nations.
Currently, the U.S. is engaged in military activities in at least four conflicts:
• Yemeni Civil War: The U.S. provides logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition and conducts operations against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, including drone strikes and occasional direct military actions. Recent events, such as Houthi attacks on U.S. shipping assets in the Red Sea, have prompted defensive military responses.
• Somali Civil War: Since 2007, the U.S. has conducted airstrikes and deployed special forces to target al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group, in support of the Somali government and African Union forces.
• Syrian Civil War: The U.S. maintains a military presence in northeastern Syria, primarily to combat the Islamic State (ISIS) alongside the Syrian Democratic Forces, though this occurs without the consent of the Syrian government, complicating its legal status.
• Gaza Conflict: While not directly fighting, the U.S. provides significant military aid and support to Israel, which is engaged in conflict with Hamas and other groups, and has conducted defensive operations in the region, such as intercepting attacks on U.S. assets.
Additionally, U.S. troops remain in Iraq to counter ISIS remnants, and the country supports Ukraine against Russia through extensive military aid, though no U.S. forces are in combat there.
These operations stem from authorizations like the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allows action against terrorist groups without a formal war declaration.
In short, while the U.S. is not in a formally declared war, it is far from a state of complete peace, with ongoing military involvement in multiple regions as of today.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:10 am to lionward2014
Yeah, I still do not see a difference. Functionally they are equivalent.
To put it another way - has a Court ever limited executive action based on an AUMF vs an authorization of war?
To put it another way - has a Court ever limited executive action based on an AUMF vs an authorization of war?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:20 am to Bandit1980
If Biden had the right to bring them in with no barriers, then Trump can ship them out, with no barriers. Pretty simple no doubt.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:28 am to TBoy
quote:
We have not been invaded.
I disagree. We have been invaded by millions.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:31 am to Decatur
quote:The outcome says otherwise.
Sure he does.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:25 pm to AggieHank86
Why do you have such trouble understanding the plenary powers of The Executive? He is the Commander in Chief. He is repelling an invasion. END OF MOTHER FUKKIN STORY.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 1:26 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News