Crime Trump Administration Sent Legal Immigrant to Prison in El Salvador

[ShadowRun]

He didn't ignore the court's ruling. Once again, you fall for any bullshit you read on Twitter. He used another mechanism that was legal and less broad.

What are instances in recent decades where the executive has so flagrantly ignored court rulings?

He used alternative methods that is correct. Obama’s gulf oil drilling , DAPA, bush NSA warrantless searches come to mind . It probably can be argued , its not as you put flagrantly defying court orders I would say . I would have to research that . But again that goes for Trump

 

[avenue94]

He used alternative methods that is correct.

What alternative legal method did he use? Sounds like alternative facts.

Obama’s gulf oil drilling , DAPA, bush NSA warrantless searches come to mind .

What Supreme Court cases did these rulings ignore?

But again that goes for Trump

The AEA is one of the most crystal clear old timey laws we have. It requires due process hearings and it requires a declaration of war against another country. None of those facts exist, yet the administration has violated all of these legal points.

 

[ShadowRun]

What alternative legal method did he use? Sounds like alternative facts.

What Supreme Court cases did these rulings ignore?

The AEA is one of the most crystal clear old timey laws we have. It requires due process hearings and it requires a declaration of war against another country. None of those facts exist, yet the administration has violated all of these legal points.

You said he used another method, alien enemies act is about national security so there isn’t due process . I’m not saying Trump is doing the absolute right thing with that

 

[avenue94]

You said he used another method, alien enemies act is about national security so there isn’t due process . I’m not saying Trump is doing the absolute right thing with that

Yes, because the Supreme Court didn't say loan forgiveness is illegal, just a specific way proposed.

How do you so confidently discuss a law you've plainly never read? I might as well as talking to a squirrel about Latin. There's absolutely no argument you can make that Trump used this law properly.

Here's Section 23 of the law, which literally says a full examination and hearing by judge is required.

After any such proclamation has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.

 

[ShadowRun]

Yes, because the Supreme Court didn't say loan forgiveness is illegal, just a specific way proposed.

How do you so confidently discuss a law you've plainly never read? I might as well as talking to a squirrel about Latin. There's absolutely no argument you can make that Trump used this law properly.

Here's Section 23 of the law, which literally says a full examination and hearing by judge is required.

After any such proclamation has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.

What does that got to do with constitutional crisis , I don’t realize we had another SD lawyer , congrats bro

Edit actually let’s ask a real lawyer @Darkballs , hey buddy what’s your opinion on the legal matters of all this ? Not sure it’s exactly what you practice but I am interested

 

[avenue94]

What does that got to do with constitutional crisis , I don’t realize we had another SD lawyer , congrats bro

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the plain language one of the more important bills in US history and one of the few explicitly taught in the US public school system.

Like I said: an administration flagrantly ignoring established law and attempted remedies from the legal system has all the makings of a constitutional crisis.

 

[ShadowRun]

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the plain language one of the more important bills in US history and one of the few explicitly taught in the US public school system.

Like I said: an administration flagrantly ignoring established law and attempted remedies from the legal system has all the makings of a constitutional crisis.

What does what you posted about section 23 have to do with constitution? Dude either connect the dots or stop replying .
also edit I asked about DB’s opinion because he knows what he’s talking about.

 

[avenue94]

What does what you posted about section 23 have to do with constitution?

The executive is not supposed to violate the laws it claims to be using. That's a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, or else it wouldn't matter because the government could pick and choose which parts it liked. Or another way of looking at it, the law requires a declaration of war, of which only the legislature can proffer.

also edit I asked about DB’s opinion because he knows what he’s talking about.

He's going to tell you the exact same thing. This isn't a complex legal question, it's plain English and do you understand the meaning of these words in the order they are presented.

 

[ShadowRun]

The executive is not supposed to violate the laws it claims to be using. That's a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, or else it wouldn't matter because the government could pick and choose which parts it liked. Or another way of looking at it, the law requires a declaration of war, of which only the legislature can proffer.

He's going to tell you the exact same thing. This isn't a complex legal question, it's plain English and do you understand the meaning of these words in the order they are presented.

Again section 23 is not in the constitution. Either connect the dots or shut up , you’re wasting my time

He could but I doubt it . He does hate Trump but at least he’s intellectually honest, where as you’re not

 

[avenue94]

Again section 23 is not in the constitution. Either connect the dots or shut up , you’re wasting my time

He could but I doubt it . He does hate Trump but at least he’s intellectually honest, where as you’re not

Dear lord you are dense. The constitutional problem is that the courts have struck down the administrations actions and instead of copying its trying to stir up impeachment and continue ignoring rulings. Not to mention by violating due process the goverment is clearly violating the constitution.

Again the entire point of the constitution is that the executive is supposed to follow the laws and rulings of the judiciary.

 

[jk7707]

Will someone please think of the constitution during this crisis

Yes. It's the job of the judicial branch to check the power of the executive branch if they are committing acts that are blatantly unconstitutional.

The fact that you're still attempting to make excuses for these absolutely evil acts by the federal government just illustrates that you don't give a shit about the Constitution. You're dedicated to defending daddy no matter the cost.

 

[Cartiac]

What alternative legal method did he use? Sounds like alternative facts.

What Supreme Court cases did these rulings ignore?

The AEA is one of the most crystal clear old timey laws we have. It requires due process hearings and it requires a declaration of war against another country. None of those facts exist, yet the administration has violated all of these legal points.

It is clear, but apparently not clear enough.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "OR", OR have you not actually read the law, OR are you intentionally omitting what the law actually says?

It is crystal clear the law does not require a declaration of war. It states "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".

50 U.S. Code § 21 makes no mention of due process or hearings at all. The entire point of it is to specifically grant The President individual power to direct the conduct of the US regarding those "who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized".

50 U.S. Code § 23 assigning duty to the courts "upon complaint against any alien enemy resident". It clearly only applies to those that meet the definition of resident aliens which these illegals do not.

 

[Cartiac]

Yes. It's the job of the judicial branch to check the power of the executive branch if they are committing acts that are blatantly unconstitutional.

The fact that you're still attempting to make excuses for these absolutely evil acts by the federal government just illustrates that you don't give a shit about the Constitution. You're dedicated to defending daddy no matter the cost.

That is not an accurate description of the judicial branch at all. The judicial branch's job is to hear and resolve disputes regarding the fair application of law according to the Constitution and present their rulings with the opinions for and against the majority decision. Their opinions are based solely on the constitutionality of the specific arguments of the case and only those arguments, nothing more as is the authority and purpose granted to them by the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justices do not wield any individual power and even as a group never issue anything close to direct, specific orders to the POTUS.

This recent and very obviously biased attempt by district court judges to assert authoritarian, nationwide control, clearly extending well beyond the named parties of the case and district level jurisdiction to not only shutdown any and all action of the POTUS but also issuing direct orders commanding the action of federal agencies is by far the most extreme abuse of power seen in this country for a very long time.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Their opinions are based solely on the constitutionality of the specific arguments of the case

Uh, no. In actual practical fact, SC justices can make opinions based on whatever they want. Constitutionality is a rhetorical veneer that no SC judge is under any enforceable obligation to consider, regardless of its use as a smokescreen or rationalization.

 

[jk7707]

That is not an accurate description of the judicial branch at all. The judicial branch's job is to hear and resolve disputes regarding the fair application of law according to the Constitution and present their rulings with the opinions for and against the majority decision. Their opinions are based solely on the constitutionality of the specific arguments of the case and only those arguments, nothing more as is the authority and purpose granted to them by the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justices do not wield any individual power and even as a group never issue anything close to direct, specific orders to the POTUS.

This recent and very obviously biased attempt by district court judges to assert authoritarian, nationwide control, clearly extending well beyond the named parties of the case and district level jurisdiction to not only shutdown any and all action of the POTUS but also issuing direct orders commanding the action of federal agencies is by far the most extreme abuse of power seen in this country for a very long time.

Yes, the fair application of the law according to the Constitution, which in this case has been blatantly violated.

Fuck off.

 

[Cartiac]

Yes, the fair application of the law according to the Constitution, which in this case has been blatantly violated.

Fuck off.

If the only response you can muster is an expression of vulgarity, you should have had the self respect to not respond. Nothing in my post had even the slightest intent of being personal. I am not upset with you, I just expected better.

 

[avenue94]

It is crystal clear the law does not require a declaration of war. It states "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".

This other part doesn't matter as well, because only an invasion by a country counts. You can see this in the tortured language of the proclamation, which stops short of saying Venezuela is invading.

50 U.S. Code § 21 makes no mention of due process or hearings at all. The entire point of it is to specifically grant The President individual power to direct the conduct of the US regarding those "who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized".

50 U.S. Code § 23 assigning duty to the courts "upon complaint against any alien enemy resident". It clearly only applies to those that meet the definition of resident aliens which these illegals do not.

Can you name a single case under this law pre-Trump where a hearing was not held before deportation?

Their opinions are based solely on the constitutionality of the specific arguments of the case and only those arguments, nothing more as is the authority and purpose granted to them by the Constitution.

Lol, remind me again how Thomas found a constitutional right to interracial marriage but not gay marriage and abortion.

How the Supreme Court operates in the US is very different from most democracies and more akin to high priests attempting to divine wisdom from ancient texts.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Now the admin is Doubling down and actively fighting to keep him there.

Trump calls on Supreme Court to keep wrongfully deported man in El Salvador prison

Trump appeals court order demanding Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States by midnight

www.independent.co.uk

 

[PainIsLIfe]

What alternative legal method did he use? Sounds like alternative facts.

What Supreme Court cases did these rulings ignore?

The AEA is one of the most crystal clear old timey laws we have. It requires due process hearings and it requires a declaration of war against another country. None of those facts exist, yet the administration has violated all of these legal points.

Fk, I'm going to catch hell for this, but my understanding is that the SC had already ruled on using the AEA back in the 40s.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 US 160 - Supreme Court 1948 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

And this wasn't a ruling made in 1946 after our war with Germany was over.

 

[avenue94]

Fk, I'm going to catch hell for this, but my understanding is that the SC had already ruled on using the AEA back in the 40s.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 US 160 - Supreme Court 1948 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

And this wasn't a ruling made in 1946 after our war with Germany was over.

Which is my point. This ruling was due process.

Additionally, it was decided on narrow grounds (that WWII hadn't officially ended), not whether or not the AEA was constitutional during peace time.