- 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
Why Judge Boasberg is Wrong
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:33 pm
SIAP, haven't seen it mentioned in the threads I've read.
Ladies and gentlemen I introduce you to Ludecke v. Watkins
The Court ruled that the Alien Enemy Act grants the President broad authority to act against alien enemies, and the judiciary’s role is limited to verifying the law’s validity, the existence of a declared war, and the individual’s alien enemy status. It also ruled that the judiciary has no role in reviewing the President’s nor Attorney General’s discretion.
The Court also found that a "declared war" persists until politically resolved, despite the end of fighting, and that the Act does not require a hearing, nor does its absence violate due process.
Ladies and gentlemen I introduce you to Ludecke v. Watkins
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.
The Court ruled that the Alien Enemy Act grants the President broad authority to act against alien enemies, and the judiciary’s role is limited to verifying the law’s validity, the existence of a declared war, and the individual’s alien enemy status. It also ruled that the judiciary has no role in reviewing the President’s nor Attorney General’s discretion.
The Court also found that a "declared war" persists until politically resolved, despite the end of fighting, and that the Act does not require a hearing, nor does its absence violate due process.
17
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:36 pm to Bard
quote:
the existence of a declared war,
Does the GWOT count?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:37 pm to Bard
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:38 pm to Bard
quote:
>the existence of a declared war
How does this work in this context?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:39 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Does the GWOT count?
Legitimate question
along with
quote:
and the individual’s alien enemy status.
Are these people "alien enemies"?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:42 pm to Bard
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:42 pm to Bard
quote:
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.
I didn't know we declared war against Venezuela or any other country. Can you cite us to the congressional declaration, please?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
So you just said (OP) that the court has power to review the question of aliens enemy status.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Are these people "alien enemies"?
Trump declared members of this, and other, gangs as terrorists. I don't see how the judiciary can get involved with who is and who is not a terrorist. It's too subjective.
Based on OP, it seems like whether there is a declared war or not is the main issue.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Are these people "alien enemies"?
Well they have been designated as terrorists. Not sure how to interpret that.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:45 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
So you just said (OP) that the court has power to review the question of aliens enemy status.
Of course this can be reviewed. If not, what happens if they make a mistake?
There has to be some sort of overview that the president's actions fall within the statutory authority given by congress. The president is only allowed to act within those boundaries, so if he used this law on a person outside the class the law applied to, how else would we resolve the issue if a court could not review it?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:46 pm to Bard
Leftists and bots ITT defending members of a terrorist organization. Pathetic.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:47 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Trump declared members of this, and other, gangs as terrorists. I don't see how the judiciary can get involved with who is and who is not a terrorist. It's too subjective.
The president is limited to declaring people terrorists pursuant to the laws granting him this power. It's not a constitutional issue at this point, it's a statutory issue. And that subjective evaluation is exactly what the Court's role is and evaluating the president's application of congressional authority given to him.
quote:
it seems like whether there is a declared war or not is the main issue.
That is probably the biggest issue for the current attempted interpretation, especially since no actual War has been declared, more specifically declared against Venezuela or the specific gangs involved.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:47 pm to Bard
He's wrong because this is a situation involving the security of the country against non-citizens.
It's squarely an Article II issue. So much so that any credible court would have dismissed it under the political question doctrine.
It's squarely an Article II issue. So much so that any credible court would have dismissed it under the political question doctrine.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:47 pm to jbdawgs03
quote:
Leftists and bots ITT defending members of a terrorist organization. Pathetic.
Nice try, comrade. (actually, not clever at all)
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:47 pm to Warboo
quote:
Not sure how to interpret that.
Breeding and analyzing the statute that permits the president to label people as "terrorists"
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:48 pm to jbdawgs03
quote:
Leftists and bots ITT defending members of a terrorist organization. Pathetic.
I only see people discussing the law and it's applicability and interpretation. Maybe you are lost?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:49 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
I only see people discussing the law and it's applicability and interpretation. Maybe you are lost?
Not lost
Just an NPC
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:50 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
He's wrong because this is a situation involving the security of the country against non-citizens.
Not accurate. Trump has the power within the ordinary law to deport or remove all non-status aliens. The administration call also revoke residence status for non-citizen immigrant gang members. The president has these powers under the ordinary law.
But not under a law that only applies to a declared war or invasion by a foreign government.
Trump is using the "gang" as a subterfuge to assume war powers, which means suspension of your and my individual rights.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The president is limited to declaring people terrorists pursuant to the laws granting him this power.
I don't think there are specific laws saying who the president can declare as a terrorist.
quote:
That is probably the biggest issue for the current attempted interpretation, especially since no actual War has been declared, more specifically declared against Venezuela or the specific gangs involved.
That's why I mentioned the GWOT. And also, I believe based on their past comments, that they will claim that Venezuela intentionally sent these gang members to the United States with ill intent, making them "enemy combatants"
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News