Started By
Message

re: Megyn Kelly — Alien Enemies Act is not subject to judicial review.

Posted on 3/21/25 at 1:40 pm to
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
79433 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 1:40 pm to
quote:

By maybe, I mean there isn’t a clear standard that the group in question must be some flag bearing uniformed invading military force.


this statute was written in 1798 that’s exactly what they expected.

They wanted to make sure the president could act before congress could meet to declare war. Because you know they took carriages places.

quote:

If Afghani Taliban sympathizers for example were coming in through the Southern border and terrorizing Americans, could the AEA not be leveraged?


Well we declared war on the Taliban. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan (until we deposed them)

The AEA would allow the president to deport and afghani living in the united states regardless of immigration status.

The question would be, could the president have deported all afghanis living in the US after 9/11. Or citizens of any nation with ties to Al Qaeda.

quote:

Those standards are met with TdAs affiliation to the Maduro regime as its Narco-terrorism arm.


But even the EO sorta sidesteps calling TdA directly a branch of the Venezealan government.

“works in conjunction with”
“takes direction from”
“has infiltrated”
“has connections to”

If the president had mob ties and told the mob to blow up Mexican Government buildings, has thenUS invaded Mexico?

and again, you can’t argue TdA itself is a foreign government or nation.

So if it’s an extension of Venezuela, then Venezuela has invaded the US.

In almost every way this is appearances only.

TdA is a drug trafficking organization. you can call them terrorist because they do political attacks to maintain power over the drug trade. I think that’s fair.

It’s a stretch to call them an arm of the Venezuelan government when they clearly have independent objective and activity.



This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 2:07 pm
Posted by Turbeauxdog
Member since Aug 2004
24273 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 1:51 pm to
No all bullshite.

quote:

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


The 3 conditions are: war or invasion or predatory incursion.

The illiteracy plaguing lawyers is staggering.

You'd have to be insane enough to be appointed to the judiciary by Obama to not think the 2nd and 3rd conditions are met.
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 2:05 pm
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
79433 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:05 pm to
you dropped the condition that a foreign government or nation has to be involved.

Also the president has to make a public proclamation, but that’s not really an issue here.
Posted by Turbeauxdog
Member since Aug 2004
24273 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:08 pm to
quote:

you dropped the condition that a foreign government or nation has to be involved.


No it's in the text.

So you're saying the judiciary now gets to make foreign policy determinations during conflict

Posted by roadGator
DeBoar’s dome
Member since Feb 2009
157892 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:10 pm to
I’m mystified (not really) by the fact that the Sammy Tiger Klan wants these murderous gang members back her so badly.
Posted by Vacherie Saint
Member since Aug 2015
47578 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:12 pm to
Bro, if the Venezuelan military formally invaded the US, we certainly don’t need the AEA to address that problem. lol.

That’s a very different protocol.

In fact, the act was originally passed by the Federalist Party who feared their own countrymen in the opposing parties were inspired toward revolution by the French example, as well as French nationals living in the US at the time, whom we were NOT at war with. In the 40’s it was used to remove Japanese, German, and Italian non-citizen civilians from the US, for fear their loyalty lied with our adversaries.

Use a little logic.
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
79433 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:14 pm to
quote:

I’m mystified (not really) by the fact that the Sammy Tiger Klan wants these murderous gang members back her so badly.


no you’re too stupid to read any of the relevant laws, orders and cases to come up with a real argument
Posted by roadGator
DeBoar’s dome
Member since Feb 2009
157892 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:16 pm to
No what? I didn’t ask you a question.

I am not surprised that you guys are arguing for their return at all.
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
79433 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:18 pm to
quote:

Bro, if the Venezuelan military formally invaded the US, we certainly don’t need the AEA to address that problem. lol.


I have said this before: The President doesn’t need the AEA to deal with any invasion or incursion when it comes to combating the invading forces.

he does not need it at all.

The AEA give him power to apprehend, restrain and remove anyone including no hostile.

so again, if TdA is an invading force why are we deporting them?

Why isn’t he asking Congress to declare war on Venezuela? Why don’t the army that he has control
over shooting them?

Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476983 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:19 pm to
quote:

The 3 conditions are: war or invasion or predatory incursion.

Not really, but fine, sure. You can have your moral victory.

It's irrelevant to the point.

Courts get to analyze that part.

quote:

not think the 2nd and 3rd conditions are met.

It's the link in the criminal organizations and expanding what they are into "any foreign nation or government", especially in the context of the larger statutory language.
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
79433 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:19 pm to
No I am not arguing for their return.

you’re too dump to know what’s going on.

Just train a parrot to listen to fox news and use “text to type” to post for you and you can go on vacation.
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
90737 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:20 pm to
Too dump to know

Sent it before

Sad
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
79433 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:21 pm to
i would care what you said if you ever presented an intelligent argument.

Turbodog can at least talk about the statute.
Posted by roadGator
DeBoar’s dome
Member since Feb 2009
157892 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:21 pm to
quote:

you’re too dump to know what’s going on.


Oof

I know what’s going on. You leftists want this undone meaning the violent gang banging invaders will be returned.

It’s what you people do.
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
79433 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:22 pm to
quote:

I know what’s going on. You leftists want this undone meaning the violent gang banging invaders will be returned. It’s what you people do.


see there you go.

too dumb to know what’s going on.

Posted by roadGator
DeBoar’s dome
Member since Feb 2009
157892 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:24 pm to
Too dump.

I know what’s going on. Everyone knows what’s going on.

I’m not sure why you are shying away from it.
Posted by jbdawgs03
Athens
Member since Oct 2017
13917 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:25 pm to
Because it’s mentally ill
Posted by Vacherie Saint
Member since Aug 2015
47578 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:26 pm to
quote:

I have said this before: The President doesn’t need the AEA to deal with any invasion or incursion when it comes to combating the invading forces


Then why the insistence that this must be about war or formal invasion?

quote:

The AEA give him power to apprehend, restrain and remove anyone including no hostile.


Now we are getting somewhere.

quote:

so again, if TdA is an invading force why are we deporting them?


Because as a matter of national security, they must be removed immediately without hearing.

quote:

Why isn’t he asking Congress to declare war on Venezuela? Why don’t the army that he has control
over shooting them?


Should FDR have rounded up Japanese civilians in California and fricking shot them in 1941?

You are trying too hard here.
Posted by hogcard1964
Alabama
Member since Jan 2017
19964 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:27 pm to
What's scary is P is nowhere near B on a keyboard.
Posted by JimEverett
Member since May 2020
2408 posts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:29 pm to
What I am responding to is your statement:
quote:

But by law, this would allow him to deport legal venezuelan immigrants and permanent alien residents (who are male and over 14) who haven’t obtained citizen ship yet and deport them no questions asked.


Perhaps my confusion is over whether you are talking about wha the law allows in general, or whether you are talking about Trump's particular invocation of the law.

When you say "this would allow him" I assume you mean this particular invocation of the law.

If so, then the law does not allow hm to deport all Venezuelans because in his Proclamation he makes clear those that are subject to removal are members of state-sponsored terroristic gangs.

I agree that f Trump had said in that statutorily require Proclamation that we were being invaded by Venezuela and all Venezuelans are subject to removal then you would be correct. But that is not what happened.
Jump to page
Page First 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 16Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram