Where do you find your “what is really known”?
from my own observations, before i make any final decision
is this all about me now? because i doubt you care
Well… it was all about me drinking kool-aid.
in one post only yes.
And now it’s about you.
bored of the topic?
Not at all. Can’t take it just dish it out?
why do you ask?
The whinging
Judge Rodriguez lied that an actual war is required to invoke Alien Enemies Act
Judge Rodriguez’s opinion with respect to the AEA is not in harmony with the very object of the Act as expressed by those who created it, e.g., see H. of R., Alien Enemies, May, 22nd, 1798
“Mr. O. believed, therefore, that it would be best to vest a discretionally power in the Executive to secure and take care that these men should do no injury. And this could not be looked upon as a dangerous or exorbitant power, since the President would have the power, the moment war was declared, to apprehend the whole of these people as enemies, and make them prisoners of war. And in case of a predatory incursion, made on this country, there might be as much reason for securing some of them as in case of actual war or invasion.”
Also see:
ALIENS.
"Mr. Sewall said, the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and Defence of the Country, to whom it was referred to inquire into what measures would be proper to be taken respecting aliens, were of opinion their instructions did not go to a sufficient extent, and directed him to propose to the House the following resolution for adoption:
“ Resolved, That the committee on that part of the President’s Speech which relates to commerce and the defence of the country, be authorized to consider the danger which may result by means of aliens and other disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, and what measures ought to be taken for securing, removing, or otherwise restricting such persons, and to report by bill or otherwise.” SOURCE House of Representative, May, 16th,1798.
.
Let us keep in mind that our very own Supreme Court has emphatically stated “The intention of the lawmaker is the law.” See Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
All dead.
Mr. O was a moron for believing “vest a discretionally power in the Executive” to do anything.
When “Mr. O” believed that in 1798, did the Executive have the same powers it does now? Did it have thousands of armed cops (basically a personal army)?
In 1798, did the Executive have a history of one undeclared war after another?
Did the Executive have a history of violating the Constitution on a routine basis?
lEgiSlAtiVe inTenT! does not outweigh the text. You seem to feel it does. Legislative intent is a secondary consideration, not primary, to be considered when assessing constitutionality.
If the text is clear, which it usually is barring agenda rationalization, legislative intent ends right there.
What “Mr. O” believed in 1798 in completely different contexts is practically irrelevant. They were literate, if they wanted it understood that way, they could have written it that way.
Judge Rodriguez has to be in harmony with the text of the law, not Mr. O.
Every writer of every law can have a different intent. As can every legislator who votes to pass the law.
Legislative intent doesn’t work very well as soon as the context changes. It also assumes the legislators are honest, which they obviously are not.
“The law says…” is much more important than “What I meant the law to say is…”
What would “Mr. O” say today?
1 Like
Some of the SCOTUS, it is not a monolith. In this case 7-2.
You should read the case you are using as “proof.” And stop using it.
incursion or invasion? Certainly, is within his power. It would be stupid to wait to respond until Congress noticed it.
The President is the only person in the constitution authorized to respond to one, and the only person in the constitution needed to identify one to respond to. What a silly idea… “we’ve been invaded, quick, assemble the congress so the president can act!”
3 Likes
Did Kennedy run to congress while dealing with the Russian missile crisis?
2 Likes
This is an issue, made moreso by the intentional misreading of the war powers act.
otherwise, yes, the act was in fact enacted due to an undeclared war. The quasi war.
The results of this war were profound with the SCOTUS determining that an AUMF is in fact a declaration of war, and that in the event of invasion, the nation would be defacto “at war” without a declaration or any congressional action needed.
the highlighted part is made irrelevant by the SCOTUS findings in the GWOT which definitively find the Congress can authorize war against an organization. The President’s powers to respond to an incursion or invasion are no less than the Congress’ power to declare war.
Seems quite clear that Congress, during the creation of the AEA and delegating a power to the President, specifically intended to deal with any ". . . danger which may result by means of aliens and other disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, and what measures ought to be taken for securing, removing, or otherwise restricting such persons, and to report by bill or otherwise.” SOURCE
To which “war” do you refer?
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government,
or not a make the case, in this modern example of executive overreach.
Allan
