- 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: Megyn Kelly — Alien Enemies Act is not subject to judicial review.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:29 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:29 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Then why the insistence that this must be about war or formal invasion?
because he is using the AEA to avoid any kind of review over noncombatants.
quote:
Now we are getting somewhere.
when in effect.
which is why we’re talking about whether it’s in effect.
quote:
Because as a matter of national security, they must be removed immediately without hearing.
if they are an invading force we should shoot them. Thats how i want the government to deal with invasions. Do you not agree?
quote:
Should FDR have rounded up Japanese civilians in California and fricking shot them in 1941?
So is TdA an armed force or civilians?
it’s a pretense.
1
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:52 pm to JimEverett
quote:
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.
I am saying under Trumps interpretation that’s how the law would work.
quote:
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.
Under the AEA the president must make a declaration of the invasion and he’s invoking the act.
Once he invokes the act, he doesn’t need to list the catagories of people. The act states exactly who he has the power to apprehend, retrain or remove.
That being citizens, natives and denizens of that foreign nation or government.
So clearly TdA isn’t a government. He’s saying it’s acting as an extension of the Venezuelan government. So if he invokes this act he can deport all venezuelans. which is good for him because then there isn’t a review over whether they are TdA or not. if they are venezuelan they’re gone if the president says so.
the EO clearly states that TdA itself is a terrorist organization. The EO doesn’t try and make TdA a government or nation because that really flimsy.
So the argument would be “well doesn’t the president get to dictate foreign policy? can’t he deam this to be an extension of Venezuela and without review?
Which seems like an insane misbalance of power prone abuse
it’s also not in line with how Trump’s own state department designated TdA.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 2:57 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:duly declared terrorist group, and we have been in a war on terror for 25 years. the days of formally declared wars against nation states are long gone so thats a meaningless distinction at this point
some people are uncomfortable with this is the "terrorist" designation not being subject to any review whatsoever, plus some murkiness over the "war" part (yes, I know the invasion/predatory incursion part).
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:00 pm to SammyTiger
You arent making sense anymore friend.
Its CLEARLY not designed for an armed invasion, i.e. an overt act of War. Clearly. This talking point is an asinine waste of time. And precedent has been established by a left wing administration for use against non-combatants, so bark louder I guess?
Examine the motivations of its authors, or examine the application of the law in precedent. Either way, you wont find what you are so desperately looking for.
If someone has to explain to you the infinite complexity of global geopolitics, and why a more nuanced law like this must exist, or that shooting MFers isnt always a prudent solution, than maybe this debate isnt for you.
ETA: The southern border has become a verified entry point for suspected Chinese spies, Islamic terrorists, and violent Latin American Narco-terrorists, and God knows who else. We arent dealing with dreamers anymore, this is a clear national security problem.
Its CLEARLY not designed for an armed invasion, i.e. an overt act of War. Clearly. This talking point is an asinine waste of time. And precedent has been established by a left wing administration for use against non-combatants, so bark louder I guess?
Examine the motivations of its authors, or examine the application of the law in precedent. Either way, you wont find what you are so desperately looking for.
If someone has to explain to you the infinite complexity of global geopolitics, and why a more nuanced law like this must exist, or that shooting MFers isnt always a prudent solution, than maybe this debate isnt for you.
ETA: The southern border has become a verified entry point for suspected Chinese spies, Islamic terrorists, and violent Latin American Narco-terrorists, and God knows who else. We arent dealing with dreamers anymore, this is a clear national security problem.
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:15 pm to Vacherie Saint
You’re rediculous.
they passed this because they thought they were going to go to war with France and wanted to be able to round up all the Frenchmen living in the US.
to say in 1798 when they passed this that they were contemplating an expansive drug cartel “invading” the US to undermine our democracy by selling drugs and committing crimes (to sell drugs) is beyond logic.
The law was passed at a time where it was foreseeable that an invasion could happen and congress wouldn’t be able to meet to declare war. If congress wasn’t in season it would take weeks for congresssmen to get if they could given a war was going on.
There absolutely are nuances in the modern world, but this law doesn’t have to apply to address those nuances and there is no need for this law to adapt.
they passed this because they thought they were going to go to war with France and wanted to be able to round up all the Frenchmen living in the US.
to say in 1798 when they passed this that they were contemplating an expansive drug cartel “invading” the US to undermine our democracy by selling drugs and committing crimes (to sell drugs) is beyond logic.
The law was passed at a time where it was foreseeable that an invasion could happen and congress wouldn’t be able to meet to declare war. If congress wasn’t in season it would take weeks for congresssmen to get if they could given a war was going on.
There absolutely are nuances in the modern world, but this law doesn’t have to apply to address those nuances and there is no need for this law to adapt.
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:16 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Its CLEARLY not designed for an armed invasion, i.e. an overt act of War.
I'm not sure about that. Just because WE haven't declared war doesn't mean that an actual enemy nation (a real one, not TDA) cannot invade us. That seems to be the exact scenario envisioned, however, again, we have no case law on this as this has never been invoked before in the 200+ year history of the statute.
quote:
examine the application of the law in precedent
There is none for this application of the law.
quote:
The southern border has become a verified entry point for suspected Chinese spies, Islamic terrorists, and violent Latin American Narco-terrorists, and God knows who else.
Well then it certainly doesn't sound like an invasion of a single nation, now does it? It seems like another sort of problem that should utilize another law.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:30 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
he doesn’t need to list the catagories of people
Whether he is required to or not, Trump did. Are you saying that the statutorily required Proclamation is meaningless to the extent it names those subject to remival?
Or, to put it another way, the required Proclamation's limits are meaningless?
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not sure about that
If we were invaded by a foreign army, would we be leveraging the AEA to remove them? C'mon.
quote:
There is none for this application of the law.
Parsing. FDR used it against civilian non-combatants in 1941. He even took the added step of interning them in camps and seizing their shite.
quote:
Well then it certainly doesn't sound like an invasion of a single nation, now does it? It seems like another sort of problem that should utilize another law.
We keep coming back to you offering your opinon in place of facts
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:34 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
You’re rediculous.
My guy....
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:35 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Whether he is required to or not, Trump did. Are you saying that the statutorily required Proclamation is meaningless to the extent it names those subject to remival?
I am saying the EO has additional instructions beyond what is required by the AEA.
They have meaning in so far as that’s how Trump
is acting, but if he is declaring Venezuela has invaded us, then he has power over all venezuelans in the US that aren’t citizens and are older than 14.
And i think that’s what he wants for a couple reasons:
1. Venezuela is a foreign nation so it meets the statute.
2. Given that he has the power to deport and venezuelan national, he doesn’t have to afford any of them due process when he accuses them of being TdA member. AND that can’t be challenged.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:36 pm to Vacherie Saint
Spelling isn’t my strong suit
and apparently historical and legal evaluation of statutes isn’t yours
is probably rather spell to be honest
and apparently historical and legal evaluation of statutes isn’t yours
is probably rather spell to be honest
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:38 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
is probably rather spell to be honest
Keep these golden zingers coming. Is English your second language? That would explain a lot actually.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:40 pm to loogaroo
so...she is wrong about this if you look at case law of Ludecke v Watkins, which explicitly says that it isnt subject to judiciary review unless there are questions of constitutionality or interpretation.
Otherwise a POTUS could just continue to declare it for anyone he wanted to deport and never show reason why. They could misapply the act
Otherwise a POTUS could just continue to declare it for anyone he wanted to deport and never show reason why. They could misapply the act
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:42 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The holding in the 1948 court case dealing with the Alien Enemies Act:
quote:
Held:
1. The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order. Pp. 335 U. S. 163-166.
2. In the circumstances of relations between the United States and Germany, there exists a "declared war" notwithstanding the cessation of actual hostilities, and the order is enforceable. Pp. 335 U. S. 166-170.
3. The Alien Enemy Act, construed as permitting resort to the courts only to challenge its validity and construction, and to raise questions of the existence of a "declared war" and of alien enemy status, does not violate the Bill of lights of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 335 U. S. 170-171.
4. The fact that hearings are utilized by the Executive to secure an informed basis for the exercise of the summary power conferred by the Act does not empower the courts to retry such hearings, nor does it make the withholding of such power from the courts a denial of due process. Pp. 335 U. S. 171-172.
Same case which is Ludecke v Watkins
"As Congress explicitly recognized in the recent Administrative Procedure Act, some statutes "preclude judicial review." Act of June 11, 1946,§ 10, 60 Stat. 237, 243. Barring questions of interpretation and constitutionality,"
LINK
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:42 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
If we were invaded by a foreign army, would we be leveraging the AEA to remove them? C'mon.
You're under the false pretense that the AEA applies only to the foreign army. We don't need to speculate on the wider application of this law. We have real world data. Lots of innocent people of Japanese and German ancestry, who had no association to the Japanese or German governments/armies during WW2, faced the wrath of this law during WW2.
quote:
FDR used it against civilian non-combatants in 1941.
With a declared war. You're specifically not talking about utilizing that clause.
quote:
We keep coming back to you offering your opinon in place of facts
You gave a hypothetical. I analyzed this law within that hypothetical.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:43 pm to loogaroo
quote:
this is what Miller said a few days ago.
I watched him school CNN on this. He's a bad arse.
Miller also continued to leave off "foreign nation or government" when he was talking about incursion or invasion. He spent 9 minutes spouting a lot of wrong information about the act in general. This would have to be an act of war from Venezuela , in which all Venezuelans would be on the chopping block to be sent home, even ones with visa's
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:45 pm to SammyTiger
I'm going to try to be fair with you a little bit. Its certainly fair game to debate the interpretation of a law. That's what the judiciary is for.
The issue with respect to this case is the judge in question has personal conflicts, documented bias, and is part of a clear broader strategy of obstruction now meandering into matters of national security and classified information. You want him to be right about this. I get that, but you need to be at least a little willing to be honest about his motives. Because there's only two outcomes from something like this.. and it goes for either party. Either we will be nation controlled by unelected judges, or we will be a nation that completely ignores them.
The issue with respect to this case is the judge in question has personal conflicts, documented bias, and is part of a clear broader strategy of obstruction now meandering into matters of national security and classified information. You want him to be right about this. I get that, but you need to be at least a little willing to be honest about his motives. Because there's only two outcomes from something like this.. and it goes for either party. Either we will be nation controlled by unelected judges, or we will be a nation that completely ignores them.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You gave a hypothetical. I opined within that hypothetical.
fify
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
We're talking about people who are known members of Terrorist Gangs. Their relationship to the purposes of their governments (to cause mayem upon the people and the institutions of The United States) is not casual or tangential. Your example of people with German or Japanese ancestry is stupid!
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:50 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
ETA: The southern border has become a verified entry point for suspected Chinese spies, Islamic terrorists, and violent Latin American Narco-terrorists, and God knows who else. We arent dealing with dreamers anymore, this is a clear national security problem
so are we employing the AEA on every latin american country, the middle east, and China? Those are bold accusations, because you have to accuse every country individually of an invasion or incursion. This current AEA proclamation only applies to those with Venezuelan ties. Goodluck with that.
Page 7 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News