- 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 3:53 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 3/21/25 at 3:53 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Either we will be nation controlled by unelected judges, or we will be a nation that completely ignores them.
We have always been a nation where the "unelected judges" have the ability to check the Executive branch if they are acting against the constitution. Thats why the judge has to check the interpretation of this act because if it is misapplied then the executive is denying persons the right to due process of law, which is protected under the 14th amendment.
and yes....questioning interpretation is allowed with this act.
0
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:00 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
hey 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.
The issue wasn't the French, it was the British.
Canada was a colony of the Crown and the US was invaded from Canada by the British in 1812, just 14 years after AEA was passed.
Do not discount the fact that in 1776, a third of the colonists were loyal to the Crown.
"foreign nations or governments" - not foreign governments, why?
IMO - "foreign" was discretely excluded. If State or local government, comprised of individuals loyal to the Crown were facilitating an "invasion" of British agents and provocateurs, the Executive Branch had the right to remove them, whether we were at war with the British or not, overriding the invitation from the State. Now, does that make the facilitators treasonous, if their guests are expelled under this Act?
What i see, without receipts, is our own Federal Government appointed NGOs, with cooperation with foreign counties, facilitating of an invasion of foreign provocateurs. POTUS is not using AEA for all of the undocumented immigrants, just the ones that can be proven to be foreign agents, so to speak. With receipts, was a crime against the US committed by allowing this particular group if "immigrants" into the country?
Is using the AEA and seeing if it sticks a set up for other legal actions?
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:00 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
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.
that’s is also very much your opinion.
the personal conflict is overblown. Partners for Justice trains legal advocates to assist people with legal matters while working through Public Defender offices.
That includes working with immigrant but it isn’t exclusively for that. The organization itself is it lawyers, does not provide actual legal advice and is a nonprofit. his daughter isn’t a board member. While it’s publicaly funded no one has suggested that they would lose all funding if trump can deport these guys.
Having ruled against Trump before isn’t anymore evidence of bias than having ruled in trumps favor before, and this judge has.
quote:
part of a clear broader strategy of obstruction now meandering into matters of national security and classified information.
this comes up all the time when people sue the government and what the Judge is ordering is standard. you either formally assert that the documents are a state secret or you provide the documents. The SCOTUS has determined that courts can rule on whether documents are state secrets, so they are supposed to get enough information to determine whether there is a legitimate basis or not.
Trump is not producing information and he is not formally asserting state secret privilege.
at least he wasn’t the last time I checked.
the judge has ordered him to do one or the other.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:06 pm to GamecockUltimate
woah.. did I say that!?!
I'm simply highlighting the nature of modern warfare.. sometimes hot, sometimes cold, sometimes by proxy, and almost always featured with insurgents, guerillas, spinmeisters, hackers, spies, splinter groups, radicalized fundamentalists and the like. And we do this all the time. We sanction countries for aiding, abetting, funding, and harboring terrorists like this constantly. shite, we are sanctioning Venezuela currently.
Personally, I see the AEA conditions as met in this case because TdA is an organized terror group aligned with the Maduro regime. The debate is all good, but the left wants to wallow in legal nuance while ignoring the judges motives and biases.
I'm simply highlighting the nature of modern warfare.. sometimes hot, sometimes cold, sometimes by proxy, and almost always featured with insurgents, guerillas, spinmeisters, hackers, spies, splinter groups, radicalized fundamentalists and the like. And we do this all the time. We sanction countries for aiding, abetting, funding, and harboring terrorists like this constantly. shite, we are sanctioning Venezuela currently.
Personally, I see the AEA conditions as met in this case because TdA is an organized terror group aligned with the Maduro regime. The debate is all good, but the left wants to wallow in legal nuance while ignoring the judges motives and biases.
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:07 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
the personal conflict is overblown.
of course you think this.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:13 pm to keks tadpole
quote:
The issue wasn't the French, it was the British. Canada was a colony of the Crown and the US was invaded from Canada by the British in 1812, just 14 years after AEA was passed.
well in 1798 it was the french the Federalist were worried about.
quote:
Do not discount the fact that in 1776, a third of the colonists were loyal to the Crown. "foreign nations or governments" - not foreign governments, why? IMO - "foreign" was discretely excluded. If State or local government, comprised of individuals loyal to the Crown were facilitating an "invasion" of British agents and provocateurs, the Executive Branch had the right to remove them, whether we were at war with the British or not, overriding the invitation from the State. Now, does that make the facilitators treasonous, if their guests are expelled under this Act?
This is a piecemeal
interpretation that ignore how “foreign nation or government” is used throughout the statute.
if “government” could apply to US State Governments then the statue would give the president the ability to remove citizens of US States. which would violate their rights under the constitution.
it would make the act clearly unconstitutional.
quote:
What i see, without receipts, is our own Federal Government appointed NGOs, with cooperation with foreign counties, facilitating of an invasion of foreign provocateurs. POTUS is not using AEA for all of the undocumented immigrants, just the ones that can be proven to be foreign agents, so to speak. With receipts, was a crime against the US committed by allowing this particular group if "immigrants" into the country?
This doesn’t begin to make sense in any application to the statute.
quote:
Is using the AEA and seeing if it sticks a set up for other legal actions?
Well if the SCOTUS says the president has full authority to declare anyone he wants a “foreign nation or government” and declare them to have invaded the us and that the Courts would have 0 ability to review that, then yes, this will get used a lot.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:14 pm to keks tadpole
correct. The majority federalists feared the French revolution would inspire a second American revolution by members of the Democratic-Republicans, who held favor with newer colonists still sympathetic to Europe.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:16 pm to SammyTiger
The State department, in consultation with the DOJ and Treasury department designate FTO's. Not the president, and not unilaterally.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:21 pm to Vacherie Saint
But the AEA doesn’t apply to FTOs.
Trump has to make the FTO a foreign government or nation somehow.
and also… the president controls all of those departments so.
Trump has to make the FTO a foreign government or nation somehow.
and also… the president controls all of those departments so.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:24 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:Sorry if already addressed, but what do you make of questions as to "declared war" regarding alien enemy status?
Personally, I see the AEA conditions as met in this case.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:30 pm to NC_Tigah
it doesn’t have to be a declared war.
it can be an invasion or predatory incursions or threat there of
the question is if TdA is a Foreign Government.
and it’s not.
it can be an invasion or predatory incursions or threat there of
the question is if TdA is a Foreign Government.
and it’s not.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:31 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
the question is if TdA is a Foreign Government.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:32 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
But the AEA doesn’t apply to FTOs.
you made the point friend, but ill bite. If the FTO is linked to a foreign government, as TdA is, guess what window opens up?
quote:
Trump has to make the FTO a foreign government or nation somehow.
LOL. No he doesnt. Just connect the threat to the regime, which is already the case
quote:Nah. The left told us over and over again that shameless Trump lawfare, IRS targeting, and deep state shenanigans had nothing to do with the WH.
and also… the president controls all of those departments so.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:32 pm to BBONDS25
he will keep beating this drum forever, bro
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:35 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
he will keep beating this drum forever, bro
I know. It is disappointing when lawyers take the wrong side of the law. Knowing they are taking the wrong side of the law for political reasons. I hate a dirty lawyer.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:37 pm to NC_Tigah
the declared war clause is followed by a conspicuous OR any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government
The DOJ is leaning on TdA's connection to the Maduro regime, and the fact that Maduro released them from prisons and sent them here.
A parallel would be Hamas's affiliation with the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood or Hezballah to Iran, as an example
The DOJ is leaning on TdA's connection to the Maduro regime, and the fact that Maduro released them from prisons and sent them here.
A parallel would be Hamas's affiliation with the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood or Hezballah to Iran, as an example
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:40 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
you made the point friend, but ill bite. If the FTO is linked to a foreign government, as TdA is, guess what window opens up?
The statue says foreign nation or government and then gives him power over citizens of that foreign nation or government.
so “linking” them isn’t enough. and he can’t just say a Venezuelan “linked” FTO invaded us. he basically has no say, TdA is for purposes the Venezuelan government.
quote:
LOL. No he doesnt. Just connect the threat to the regime, which is already the case
again where in the statue does it say invasion by a “FTO linked to a foreign country”
quote:
Nah. The left told us over and over again that shameless Trump lawfare, IRS targeting, and deep state shenanigans had nothing to do with the WH.
Maybe Trump should try obeying the law more.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:41 pm to SammyTiger
you are being intentionally obtuse
you claimed that Trump could unilaterally declare anyone a terrorist and leverage this act under the DOJs interpretation. Thats not true.
you claimed that Trump could unilaterally declare anyone a terrorist and leverage this act under the DOJs interpretation. Thats not true.
This post was edited on 3/21/25 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:43 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Well, that wouldn't be the question. The question would be whether Tren de Aragua presence or actions constitute an "invasion or predatory incursion" tied to Venezuelan actions getting them here, right?
the question is if TdA is a Foreign Government.
Posted on 3/21/25 at 4:45 pm to NC_Tigah
right.
Page 8 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News