(05-03-2025 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Someone who has through. a proceeding resulting in a deportation order has already had due process. The due process argument in that case is like someone who gets convicted of a crime and gets ten years in prison arguing that you can't actually put him/her in prison without another court proceeding subject to due process. If there is a deportation order, the subject has already been afforded due process. Now it is just a matter of carrying out the results of that due process.

Uh oh. Tanq is gonna whack you over the head with his Due Process yardstick!

(05-03-2025 12:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...58.0_1.pdf

Removing some of the copy for everyone's benefit.

So, I'm somewhat amused after your argument with TripleA about the use of and/or.

It clearly articulates this distinction in the very first line of the Act.

That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, 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, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event,

Who gets to make the intelligence assessment of what is a "predatory incursion" and whether it was perpetuated by a hostile foreign nation state (e.g. Maduro). To help you out it's highlighted in green.

The President will make the assessment. Not a jag off district judge. Not the media. Not keyboard warriors. THE PRESIDENT. Moreover, and as I have said before it does not say "AND" or "to include predatory incursion." It clearly says war OR predatory incursion.

This is going to go to the Supreme Court and it's going to be another L for marxism.

(05-03-2025 10:57 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...58.0_1.pdf

Removing some of the copy for everyone's benefit.

So, I'm somewhat amused after your argument with TripleA about the use of and/or.

It clearly articulates this distinction in the very first line of the Act.

That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, 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, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event,

Who gets to make the intelligence assessment of what is a "predatory incursion" and whether it was perpetuated by a hostile foreign nation state (e.g. Maduro). To help you out it's highlighted in green.

The President will make the assessment. Not a jag off district judge.

And under Ludecke Sup Ct 1947 the courts are absolutely propepr to determine if that assessment meets the predicates. That is, the President simply cant make **** u pand say the Act is valid.

Quote:Not the media. Not keyboard warriors. THE PRESIDENT. Moreover, and as I have said before it does not say "AND" or "to include predatory incursion." It clearly says war OR predatory incursion.

yep, it says declared war, or invasion, or predatory incursion. Court wonderfully made the point it was NONE of them. Again, just read the opinion.

None of my comments were predicated at all on the 'or' there. The court simply went down the list: declared war? Nope. Invasion? After determining what an 'invasion' entails -- nope. Incursion? After determining what an 'incursion' entails -- nope.

Then the court says -- since NONE of the above are met, no one even needs to get into the weeds about the 'by a foreign state or government'. But to be complete, they did. To show *another* route of failure.


If your thesis is the President can wave a magic wand and conjure up an improper reason to activiate -- you might want to rethink that there good sir.

In fact the court addresses that when the DOJ made the 'cant even look at this stuff' argument you just brought up. And the government conceded even back in ''47 tht it is entirely proper for that level of review.

Quote:This is going to go to the Supreme Court and it's going to be another L for marxism.

Its Marxist to employ a three branches of government approach? *That* is one Ive never heard before. Lolz.

(05-03-2025 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Someone who has through. a proceeding resulting in a deportation order has already had due process. The due process argument in that case is like someone who gets convicted of a crime and gets ten years in prison arguing that you can't actually put him/her in prison without another court proceeding subject to due process. If there is a deportation order, the subject has already been afforded due process. Now it is just a matter of carrying out the results of that due process.

#s, you are simply ignoring the stay put in place by the court. Maybe use the facts of the case in the analysis.

You have a timing issue. When the due process *results* in a stay, your argument that no due process need be afforded to ignore is just empty.

Here is a clearer analogy ---

You are convicted of theft. The court issues a ruling that the government cannot jail you until you can appeal your verdict and sentence.

Under your theory, the government is free to jail you even under that order. Since the court convicted you. And since you had due process in the conviction none need apply to the stay of serving sentence.

The comment above is just really not well thought out.

Or one more perhaps closer to home --

The government audits you and determines you owe 40k more taxes, and the matter goes to court. Say even to District Court.

The Court rules that you indeed owe the tax. The court also agrees to stay the imposed payment and penalty until an appeal is finished.

Under your rationale above the IRS may roll in a levy and pursue payment --- since the stay is somehow ignored sua sponte on the premise the 'due process' resulted in the judgement, and that since that due process was performed there is no reason that the stay need be honored on due process grounds.

Seriously, the stay makes a huge difference, and you seemingly simply leave it ouot.

(05-03-2025 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 10:57 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...58.0_1.pdf

Removing some of the copy for everyone's benefit.

So, I'm somewhat amused after your argument with TripleA about the use of and/or.

It clearly articulates this distinction in the very first line of the Act.

That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, 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, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event,

Who gets to make the intelligence assessment of what is a "predatory incursion" and whether it was perpetuated by a hostile foreign nation state (e.g. Maduro). To help you out it's highlighted in green.

The President will make the assessment. Not a jag off district judge.

And under Ludecke Sup Ct 1947 the courts are absolutely propepr to determine if that assessment meets the predicates. That is, the President simply cant make **** u pand say the Act is valid.

Quote:Not the media. Not keyboard warriors. THE PRESIDENT. Moreover, and as I have said before it does not say "AND" or "to include predatory incursion." It clearly says war OR predatory incursion.

yep, it says declared war, or invasion, or predatory incursion. Court wonderfully made the point it was NONE of them. Again, just read the opinion.

None of my comments were predicated at all on the 'or' there. The court simply went down the list: declared war? Nope. Invasion? After determining what an 'invasion' entails -- nope. Incursion? After determining what an 'incursion' entails -- nope.

Then the court says -- since NONE of the above are met, no one even needs to get into the weeds about the 'by a foreign state or government'. But to be complete, they did. To show *another* route of failure.


If your thesis is the President can wave a magic wand and conjure up an improper reason to activiate -- you might want to rethink that there good sir.

In fact the court addresses that when the DOJ made the 'cant even look at this stuff' argument you just brought up. And the government conceded even back in ''47 tht it is entirely proper for that level of review.

Quote:This is going to go to the Supreme Court and it's going to be another L for marxism.

Its Marxist to employ a three branches of government approach? *That* is one Ive never heard before. Lolz.

I understand the judge in this case said none of those three are applicable, but a single judge does not get to determine what constitutes an incursion from a foreign state. It's an extreme overstepping of judicial authority. If the plaintiffs wanted to argue they are not TdA then fair game. Argue away. Declarations of War and what constitutes it or otherwise doesn't, an act of terrorism, an invasion, an act of foreign incursion, etc., are not within the judicial purview. Ultimately, the SC will strike this down if it gets that far and I'm 99.9% convinced of that. These judges should stay within their lanes and stop trying to rule on executive authorities. They are making determinations beyond the scope of the issues at hand.

(05-03-2025 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its Marxist to employ a three branches of government approach? *That* is one Ive never heard before. Lolz.

That's not what I said or anything close to that. I'm referring to the organizations who are responsible for bringing most of these cases to the courts.

(05-03-2025 12:19 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its Marxist to employ a three branches of government approach? *That* is one Ive never heard before. Lolz.

That's not what I said or anything close to that. I'm referring to the organizations who are responsible for bringing most of these cases to the courts.

So its Marxist to bring a case against rendition?

With that logic if ISIS members were found to be illegally in the country by the 1000s, we couldn't remove them via the Alien Invasion Act. No country of ISIS, right? Stupidity at it's finest.

(05-03-2025 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:19 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its Marxist to employ a three branches of government approach? *That* is one Ive never heard before. Lolz.

That's not what I said or anything close to that. I'm referring to the organizations who are responsible for bringing most of these cases to the courts.

So its Marxist to bring a case against rendition?

I don't know what you're getting at and I'm not doing this again with you. That's a stupid question.

(05-03-2025 12:16 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 10:57 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...58.0_1.pdf

Removing some of the copy for everyone's benefit.

So, I'm somewhat amused after your argument with TripleA about the use of and/or.

It clearly articulates this distinction in the very first line of the Act.

That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, 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, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event,

Who gets to make the intelligence assessment of what is a "predatory incursion" and whether it was perpetuated by a hostile foreign nation state (e.g. Maduro). To help you out it's highlighted in green.

The President will make the assessment. Not a jag off district judge.

And under Ludecke Sup Ct 1947 the courts are absolutely propepr to determine if that assessment meets the predicates. That is, the President simply cant make **** u pand say the Act is valid.

Quote:Not the media. Not keyboard warriors. THE PRESIDENT. Moreover, and as I have said before it does not say "AND" or "to include predatory incursion." It clearly says war OR predatory incursion.

yep, it says declared war, or invasion, or predatory incursion. Court wonderfully made the point it was NONE of them. Again, just read the opinion.

None of my comments were predicated at all on the 'or' there. The court simply went down the list: declared war? Nope. Invasion? After determining what an 'invasion' entails -- nope. Incursion? After determining what an 'incursion' entails -- nope.

Then the court says -- since NONE of the above are met, no one even needs to get into the weeds about the 'by a foreign state or government'. But to be complete, they did. To show *another* route of failure.


If your thesis is the President can wave a magic wand and conjure up an improper reason to activiate -- you might want to rethink that there good sir.

In fact the court addresses that when the DOJ made the 'cant even look at this stuff' argument you just brought up. And the government conceded even back in ''47 tht it is entirely proper for that level of review.

Quote:This is going to go to the Supreme Court and it's going to be another L for marxism.

Its Marxist to employ a three branches of government approach? *That* is one Ive never heard before. Lolz.

I understand the judge in this case said none of those three are applicable, but a single judge does not get to determine what constitutes an incursion from a foreign state. It's an extreme overstepping of judicial authority. If the plaintiffs wanted to argue they are not TdA then fair game. Argue away. Declarations of War and what constitutes it or otherwise doesn't, an act of terrorism, an invasion, an act of foreign incursion, etc., are not within the judicial purview. Ultimately, the SC will strike this down if it gets that far and I'm 99.9% convinced of that. These judges should stay within their lanes and stop trying to rule on executive authorities. They are making determinations beyond the scope of the issues at hand.

It is actually absolutely well within the scope of the courts to review if a predicate of a law is met. Even with respect to AEA.

It was conceded by the government in the '47 AEA case that that review by the court is absolutely proper.

First, in two AEA cases in and just after WW2, the Supreme Court identified issues related to the AEA that are subject to adjudication. In Ludecke, the Supreme Court confirmed that “resorts to the courts may be had . . . to challenge the construction and validity of the statute and to question the existence of the ‘declared war[.]’” Ludecke, 335 U.S. at 171

And literally just a few weeks ago the Supreme Court reaffirmed “that an individual subject to detention and removal under [the AEA] is entitled to ‘judicial review’ as to ‘questions of interpretation and constitutionality’ of the Act as well as whether he or she ‘is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.’”5 J.G.G., 2025 WL
1024097, at *


And to the bolded, Ludecke directly contradicts your comment. In that case the Court directly opined on whether there was a declared war ongoing that enabled the act. That is, in 1947 they were called upon to examine if WW2 was a sufficient rationale to maintain expulsions.

Looks like its not an overstepping of judicial authority from this viewpoint.

Id agree with an overturn if the Proclamation made sense with respect to the words. The Proclamation is bull****. There is not sufficient 'state or government' action to kickstart it.

There is a reason why SCOTUS has already kicked it in the nuts. This judge simply put the finishing bow on an artifice in the Proclamation.

Maybe next time when there is a *real* war, or a *real* invasion, or a *real* incursion will the Courts respect the massive power in the AEA. But they also dont have blinders as to the passel of bull**** and lies that emanate from this Administration as pretexts for power grabs.

(05-03-2025 12:35 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:19 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its Marxist to employ a three branches of government approach? *That* is one Ive never heard before. Lolz.

That's not what I said or anything close to that. I'm referring to the organizations who are responsible for bringing most of these cases to the courts.

So its Marxist to bring a case against rendition?

I don't know what you're getting at and I'm not doing this again with you. That's a stupid question.

Now youre getting it

(05-03-2025 12:35 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:19 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its Marxist to employ a three branches of government approach? *That* is one Ive never heard before. Lolz.

That's not what I said or anything close to that. I'm referring to the organizations who are responsible for bringing most of these cases to the courts.

So its Marxist to bring a case against rendition?

I don't know what you're getting at and I'm not doing this again with you. That's a stupid question.

You keep slinging the stupid rhetoric of Marxist as a substitute for ideas you dont believe in. And yes, the left slings the Nazi slur to short circuit your whadabout that will follow.

neither are particularly bright rhetoric.

Im sorry that you are out of joint that folks will fight this attempt to instate the AEA. Id suggest next time the administration actually try to find an avenue that fits into the bounds of the law a bit better, than the fing Argentinian cha cha cha that they wrap themselves in to contort an excuse for invoking this.

(05-03-2025 12:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  With that logic if ISIS members were found to be illegally in the country by the 1000s, we couldn't remove them via the Alien Invasion Act. No country of ISIS, right? Stupidity at it's finest.

Nothing prevents removing them via being part of a terrorist group. Imagine that.

I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.

(05-03-2025 12:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.

Cool. Emptying prisons means effective war.

Cool. Cooperating with bad folk is effective war.

If there was direct facilitation to 'take over US cities' -- then put it into evidence. easy peasy. But this Administration even lies about if planes have taken off, and refuses to answer questions about simple things like takeoff times.

Yeah -- Id say make the administration prove their point to a judge now.

(05-03-2025 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.

Cool. Emptying prisons means effective war.

Cool. Cooperating with bad folk is effective war.

If there was direct facilitation to 'take over US cities' -- then put it into evidence. easy peasy. But this Administration even lies about if planes have taken off, and refuses to answer questions about simple things like takeoff times.

Yeah -- Id say make the administration prove their point to a judge now.

I'm going TripleA you if you keep this up. I have no reason to continue to engage with you or debate you if you're going keep coming back with stupid **** like this that I DID NOT SAY. I never said it was war. I'm saying it is the "OR". It is in fact a predatory incursion overseen and facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States. These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life. It was intentional and purposeful. I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

(05-03-2025 01:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.

Cool. Emptying prisons means effective war.

Cool. Cooperating with bad folk is effective war.

If there was direct facilitation to 'take over US cities' -- then put it into evidence. easy peasy. But this Administration even lies about if planes have taken off, and refuses to answer questions about simple things like takeoff times.

Yeah -- Id say make the administration prove their point to a judge now.

I'm going TripleA you if you keep this up. I have no reason to continue to engage with you or debate you if you're going keep coming back with stupid **** like this that I DID NOT SAY. I never said it was war. I'm saying it is the "OR". It is in fact a predatory incursion overseen and facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States. These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life. It was intentional and purposeful. I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

Months ahead of you. I dont suffer fools

(05-03-2025 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  With that logic if ISIS members were found to be illegally in the country by the 1000s, we couldn't remove them via the Alien Invasion Act. No country of ISIS, right? Stupidity at it's finest.

Nothing prevents removing them via being part of a terrorist group. Imagine that.

MS13 was designated a FTO on February 29, 2025.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-int...l-cartels/
So, I ask again, what Due Process has this savage not been provided?

(05-03-2025 01:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.

Cool. Emptying prisons means effective war.

Cool. Cooperating with bad folk is effective war.

If there was direct facilitation to 'take over US cities' -- then put it into evidence. easy peasy. But this Administration even lies about if planes have taken off, and refuses to answer questions about simple things like takeoff times.

Yeah -- Id say make the administration prove their point to a judge now.

I'm going TripleA you if you keep this up. I have no reason to continue to engage with you or debate you if you're going keep coming back with stupid **** like this that I DID NOT SAY. I never said it was war. I'm saying it is the "OR". It is in fact a predatory incursion overseen and facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States. These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life. It was intentional and purposeful. I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

Tanq's is only here to argue, that's the only reason whether he's right or wrong. He likes to treat this Board as his own little Court Room. Hang in here, you know more about what's going than he does.

The assumption that the law is the final say is a false premise.