- 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: What’s stopping China from invading us if we have to give notice and due process to…
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And that's a retarded attempt at a point.
How so?
2
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No predatory incursion. No invasion.
Up for debate
quote:
Most importantly, no relation or relevance to your OP or your recent pivot.
Where did I pivot?
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:25 pm to djsdawg
quote:
How so?
That example is not in the same universe of an actual example of depravation of liberty by the state.
Let me give you one big issue: conflating third party individuals with the government. Hopefully you don't need more to understand the issues.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No predatory incursion.
What is an example of a predatory incursion? And do we have to interpret this with textualism? And yes, I’m making fun of you.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:29 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Where did I pivot?
Your subject title
quote:
What’s stopping China from invading us
Someone said:
quote:
China can now invade us (is an a wartime invasion) and that we cannot respond without first giving them due notice and process. If that is what you are saying, you are... being stupid and silly.
And you replied:
quote:
That is exactly what SCOTUS said yesterday.
Ask SFP if you don’t believe me.
So you said a "war time invasion" was "exactly" what the USSC addressed.
Once I ask you for specifics, I respond with a direct reference to war
quote:
Are we pretending that this particular statue is our only redress against an invasion?
You reply (to my comment about actual war)
quote:
Nope
What's the other option?
I make sure you're talking about what I'm talking about
quote:
To do what, specifically, and against whom, specifically?
You respond with a wartime response, confirming you're talking about a military action
quote:
To prevent and remedy any invasion or predatory incursion perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,
I give you 3 examples of war, referencing "POWs" (W stands for "war" if you didn't know)
quote:
You do realize that we can detain POWs from an actual invasion, right?
And the AEA is meant to apply to non-military targets, right?
In the War of 1812 (both a declared war and invasion), the law was used to deport British immigrants, not redcoats. We detained redcoats as POWs.
During World War 1 (a declared war), the law was used on German nationals living in the US. No application to soldiers.
During World War 2 (a declared war), the law was used on German, Italian, and Japanese nationals, some of whom were deported. No application to soldiers.
And then you have to pivot to a non-war scenario
quote:
Exactly!!
Now apply that to tens of millions and having to process each one.
Again...it's not practical or possible. The country will fall.
Imagine standing in a red ant pile and you have to pick each one off separately before you can lift your foot up.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That example is not in the same universe of an actual example of depravation of liberty by the state.
The state ensuring illegals, by protecting them, can kill you is certainly a depravation of something by the state.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:30 pm to the808bass
quote:
What is an example of a predatory incursion?
The recent case out of Texas has a good history on the meaning at the time of writing the law.
quote:
And do we have to interpret this with textualism?
No. Leftists do love the living document analysis and populists are adopting this when they choose.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:31 pm to djsdawg
quote:
The state ensuring illegals, by protecting them, can kill you is certainly a depravation of something by the state.
No. It's a reach. A retarded one.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
THREE criteria. Two of which have been arguably been met. Keep up.
quote:
So you said a "war time invasion" was "exactly" what the USSC addressed.
Did they not say we have to give notice and due process regardless?
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:36 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Did they not say we have to give notice and due process regardless?
For people we're not discussing in a wartime invasion.
The people involved in a wartime invasion would be POWs if detained and subject to the laws regarding military conflict.
I explained this in great detail, with a tactile example of the interplay of the non-military actions via the AEA during an invasion and the military side with POWs (the War of 1812). British immigrants had to deal with the AEA. The invading army were POWs.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The recent case out of Texas has a good history on the meaning at the time of writing the law.
Great cite. Thanks.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:38 pm to loogaroo
quote:About 6,000 nuclear warheads...
What’s stopping China from invading us if we have to give notice and due process to…
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:38 pm to the808bass
It is and you're welcome!
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:39 pm to loogaroo
Muh china! Muh Russia! We gots to have those external boogeymen to keep us sheep in line.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
For people we're not discussing in a wartime invasion.
The people involved in a wartime invasion would be POWs if detained and subject to the laws regarding military conflict.
I explained this in great detail, with a tactile example of the interplay of the non-military actions via the AEA during an invasion and the military side with POWs (the War of 1812). British immigrants had to deal with the AEA. The invading army were POWs.
Ok, now do the other two criteria.
quote:
§21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or 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, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, 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 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, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
(R.S. §4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well that's retarded
Yes it is. This is an apt description of our process.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:47 pm to djsdawg
quote:
How so?
He can't refute it. That's why he resorted to insults. He is not a serious person worth engaging.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:48 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Ok, now do the other two criteria.
Both still related to military and/or state action
This post was edited on 5/18/25 at 7:49 pm
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These aren't even illegal aliens and no matter how many times you repeat that it doesn't make it correct
This is true. It is correct even if I do not say it.
Posted on 5/18/25 at 7:49 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
He can't refute it.
There's nothing logical or substantive to refute.
I can't "refute" a chimp throwing shite, either, but that doesn't mean that's a sound argument, either.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News