- 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
1
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:36 pm to Arkaea79
quote:
So gangs aren't organized?
By governments? Usually not unless it's rural police in the south
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:36 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
They hear/spread the ideological position that America is being 'invaded'
Are you saying this hasn’t happened?
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:38 pm to djsdawg
Soon Trump will have to Suspend Habeas Corpus....
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/president-trump-opens-door-suspending-habeas-corpus-agressive/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/president-trump-opens-door-suspending-habeas-corpus-agressive/
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:39 pm to atlgamecockman
Yes. In this case, as is widely known in Venezuela, TdA is an “enforcement branch” of Maduros cartel. DNI has recently reconfirmed their link to the Maduro regime after the NYT tried to pull an “anonymous source” piece decoupling the two.
This post was edited on 5/1/25 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:40 pm to djsdawg
Invasion isn’t the only standard for the AEA. Don’t accept that false premise.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:42 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Are you saying this hasn’t happened?
I am saying people use the word 'invasion' hyperbolically.
Invasion typically and historically is in reference to military action. Not asylum seekers, some of whom I assume are good people.
You may call it an invasion but that is not the typical meaning of that word. The court has decided here that invasion is endorsed or enacted by a government or nation, rather than a gang.
So no.... an invasion has not occurred by that understanding. Again, you may feel differently but that's your issue.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:45 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
The court has decided here that invasion is endorsed or enacted by a government or nation, rather than a gang.
LINK
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:47 pm to Vacherie Saint
Hey fair enough, judge made the ruling not me.
Edit: Maduro and TDA = CIA and Contra... feels similar.
Edit: Maduro and TDA = CIA and Contra... feels similar.
This post was edited on 5/1/25 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:50 pm to atlgamecockman
The SCOTUS already said Trump could leverage this act for Venezuelan gang bangers provided there was a hearing… so I’m not sure where this particular judge is getting her God-like authority from.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:53 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
The court has decided here that invasion is endorsed or enacted by a government or nation, rather than a gang.
So no.... an invasion has not occurred by that understanding.
That is not what the Court has done here.
The Court has not said whether an invasion or predatory incursion has happened or not. In fact, it made clear it was not in its power to make such a ruling.
What is has said is that the language of the Proclamation invoking the AEA has not described an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" - which it must do so in order to properly invoke the Act.
I am wondering if that means that if the President has just written in the Proclamation that the invasion included taking over part of Aurora, Colorado - for instance, then the Proclamation would rightfully invoke the Act.
This Judge knows it cannot make Executive Branch decisions - like determining when an invasion has occurred. So it is specifically concerned with the language of the Proclamation itself. that is the defect, according to the Court.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 1:55 pm to JimEverett
More specifically this piece
quote:
Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope
Posted on 5/1/25 at 2:02 pm to atlgamecockman
I think that squares with my point.
The Judge does not have the power to decide whether an "invasion or predatory incursion" has occurred. It does have the power to determine what the statutory meaning of those terms are and then whether the Proclamation has described one or both of them.
In this case, he believes the Proclamation has not described an invasion or predatory incursion - not whether they have actually happened. It is a huge distinction.
The Judge does not have the power to decide whether an "invasion or predatory incursion" has occurred. It does have the power to determine what the statutory meaning of those terms are and then whether the Proclamation has described one or both of them.
In this case, he believes the Proclamation has not described an invasion or predatory incursion - not whether they have actually happened. It is a huge distinction.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 2:08 pm to JimEverett
Makes sense, I think we're on the same page.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 2:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members. As a result, the Proclamation also falls short of describing a ‘predatory incursion.’”
Have not read the proclamation but I think this language needs to be in there.
From a practical matter, if the language is in there, I do not think the courts get to demand why it is ... That is a pure executive function and I would doubt it is subject to scrutiny by the court...not that they wont try (turn that plane around)...
Curious why that language was not in there to begin with.
quote:
am wondering if that means that if the President has just written in the Proclamation that the invasion included taking over part of Aurora, Colorado - for instance, then the Proclamation would rightfully invoke the Act.
typed the above before seeing your post...spot on... need the language and all good.
infortunately, this happens a lot and its a bit frustrating and why there are so many lawsuits.
This post was edited on 5/1/25 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 5/1/25 at 2:49 pm to dafif
I agree.
This Court is giving the President a blueprint on how to write the Proclamation if he wants to redo it.
This Court is giving the President a blueprint on how to write the Proclamation if he wants to redo it.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 2:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The courts. This is their first shot.
The judiciary isn’t qualified to make this decision.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 3:05 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The Judge does not have the power to decide whether an "invasion or predatory incursion" has occurred.
Isn't that this function?
quote:
the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope
Posted on 5/1/25 at 3:12 pm to cajunangelle
If I were Trump, I would brush aside these district judges and export the whole gang. Any bitching, I would release all the documentation and let the public clamor for Biden.
Posted on 5/1/25 at 3:14 pm to This GUN for HIRE
]
The president defines it "by his proclamation thereof".
In case there was any question as to how broad the president's power is to declare and enforce the alien enemies act, the USSC made it very clear in their 1948 Ludecke ruling. Among other statements supporting the president's power under that act:
quote:
Who defines it?
The president defines it "by his proclamation thereof".
quote:
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
quote:
The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States
In case there was any question as to how broad the president's power is to declare and enforce the alien enemies act, the USSC made it very clear in their 1948 Ludecke ruling. Among other statements supporting the president's power under that act:
quote:
The very nature of the President's power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion. [Footnote 7] This view was expressed by Mr. Justice Iredell shortly after the Act was passed, Case of Fries, 9 Fed.Cas. No. 5126, and every judge before whom the question has since come has held that the statute barred judicial review. We would so read the Act if it came before us without the impressive gloss of history.
The power with which Congress vested the President had to be executed by him through others. He provided for the removal of such enemy aliens as were "deemed by the Attorney General" to be dangerous. But such a finding at the President's behest was likewise not to be subjected to the scrutiny of courts. For one thing, removal was contingent not upon a finding that in fact an alien was "dangerous." The President was careful to call for the removal of aliens "deemed by the Attorney General to be dangerous." But the short answer is that the Attorney General was the President's voice and conscience.
This post was edited on 5/1/25 at 3:49 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News