- 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: Stephen Miller rejects DC judges legal authority over national security.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:25 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The role of the judge to to ensure compliance in both areas.
what is the role of the judge who is 100% compromised with conflict of interest regarding his daughters involved in the 501(c)(3) she is apart of?
0
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
IF the CIC is within his statutory and Constitutional limits, a court cannot direct him acting as CIC.
IF the CIC is not within his statutory or Constitutional limits of that role, a court can rule so and the CIC can no longer (legally) act.
it's already been ruled on. the judge is just an activist obstructionist judge who should be disbarred.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:28 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:
The Alien Enemies Act can only be applied during wartime....we arent in war....
we are at war. with terrorism. disagree all you want but that "war" has not ended.
you are 100% wrong here.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:29 am to EagleEye99
quote:
OR any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States
cut and dry
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:30 am to GumboPot
quote:
This is so silly.
The current executive in the executive branch acting on an existing law passed by a previous legislature in the legislative branch and signed by a previous executive is not a unilateral act.
Agreed!!!
quote:
To act unilaterally means to act independently, without consulting or seeking agreement from others, making a decision or taking action alone.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Definition:
Unilateral action or decision is one-sided, meaning it's done by or affects only one party, person, or group, without the involvement or agreement of others.
Why does the word unilateral have to do with this???
The president is inacting a Constitutional law. The person's affected will be those found to be in violation of the law, doesn't matter who or what country is affected. The Executive chooses who is in violation since it's a matter of national security.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 11:31 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:33 am to GumboPot
quote:
The current executive in the executive branch acting on an existing law passed by a previous legislature in the legislative branch and signed by a previous executive is not a unilateral act.
Which really leads to a legitimate explanation of why this judge is going rouge.
The Democrats simply want to oppose Trump even if it means continuing the bogus misuse of the courts.
Again, this BS will continue until some consequences are delivered to the leftist scum who have no qualms about being judicial activists.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 11:35 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And the decision made by the Trump admin to interpret it in this way
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:34 am to monsterballads
quote:
we are at war. with terrorism. disagree all you want but that "war" has not ended.
you are 100% wrong here.
we are not in an official war, and even that war wasnt a declared war.
as for after the 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"
what foreign nation is threatening or attempting to invade us? I would imagine this would have to be an invasion from Mexico...which it isn't. The illegals are not acting with direction from the Mexican government.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:35 am to monsterballads
quote:
cut and dry
you casually leave out "by any foreign nation or government"
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:36 am to GumboPot
The professional TV democrats aren't even this shameless.
All they got is "muh 200 year old lawz!!!"
All they got is "muh 200 year old lawz!!!"
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:38 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:
we are not in an official war, and even that war wasnt a declared war.
SCOTUS has already ruled that a war does not have to be in progress to utilize this act.
The Ludecke decision of 1948. No foreign government was involved.
You are arguing a talking point that has already been settled by SCOTUS.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 11:41 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:39 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:
you casually leave out "by any foreign nation or government"
Read the proclamation of invoking the law for yourself and reconcile
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 11:41 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:40 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:
The illegals are not acting with direction from the Mexican government.
but they are acting under the direction of the Venezuelan government
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:41 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:
what foreign nation is threatening or attempting to invade us? I would imagine this would have to be an invasion from Mexico...which it isn't. The illegals are not acting with direction from the Mexican government
Miller addressed this. Did you not watch the video???
Venezuela's government let out violent criminals with the purpose of them coming to the US. You may not agree with interpreting such action as predatory or invading, but your not tasked with doing so. Under the law as written in the Constitution, the Executive branch makes that determination, not some district judge who clearly doesn't have jurisdiction.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:43 am to EagleEye99
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:46 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:
The Alien Enemies Act can only be applied during wartime....we arent in war....
It is really simple...black and white. So in this case Miller is wrong
The act literally mentions war OR "any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation..." War is not a condition of this law according to SCOTUS as mentioned earlier in this thread.
Government agencies have confirmed that Venezuela intentionally released Tren de Aragua members from their prisons and sent them to the US border. Tren de Aragua has been designated by the US Government as a terrorist organization. This case fits the act quite nicely.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 11:48 am
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:46 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Venezuela's government let out violent criminals with the purpose of them coming to the US.
and I would not doubt the likelihood that covert NGOs funded by US taxpayers facilitated the transportation.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:47 am to lake chuck fan
There is a deliberate reason(s) Trump did not invoke the War on Terror in his Proclamation. I wonder why.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:48 am to keks tadpole
our own tax dollars paid for them to be transported here
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:49 am to keks tadpole
It was reported that Tren de Aragua leveraged migrant caravans to get to the US border. Guess who pays for those?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News