The Alien Enemies Act - 1798

[icanhelp1]

Of course there is. They have the authority to conduct judicial review. They have the authority to issue orders binding on the executive. That is how our system has always worked.

Yes, federal district courts do have the power of judicial review. While the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant this power, it has been established through judicial precedent and is a key function of the federal court system. They can review the constitutionality of laws, actions by the government, and decisions made by administrative agencies.

Federalist #78
Marburg vs Madison : Judicial review was an authority granted only to the Supreme Court. Precedent for district court justices to wield this power is not an Article III authority. Perhaps one judge ruled and precedent was established but was never challenged by congress, eventually grew out of control. Similar to R vs W, stare decisis is not an authority to uphold bad law. Congress is feckless and the Supreme Court is failing the American people. We have 680 district court judges, therefore it appears we have 680 mini presidents. IMHO

 

[Politruk]

Marburg vs Madison : Judicial review was an authority granted only to the Supreme Court. Precedent for district court justices to wield this power is not an Article III authority.

There is no meaningful difference -- no legal argument by which you could say, the Supreme Court has this power but district courts do not.

 

[icanhelp1]

Gabbard fires National Intelligence Council officials after Venezuela report


Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has fired the National Intelligence Council's top two officials over what the Trump administration has called the "politicization of intelligence," Fox News Digital first reported Wednesday.
The big picture: The firing of acting NIC chair Mike Collins and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, comes after an intel report from the council last week contradicted an administration assertion linking Venezuela's Maduro regime to the criminal gang Tren de Aragua.

• The administration has used this to invoke the wartime authority of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport undocumented immigrants with what critics say is little or no due process.

What they're saying: "These Biden holdovers were dismissed because they politicized intelligence," said Gabbard's deputy chief of staff, Alexa Henning, on X.

• She added that "the leak of classified info was a NIC product, which is against the law, that is the issue," as she pushed back on a Washington Post report saying Gabbard had "removed or sidelined officials perceived to not support Trump's political agenda."

Between the lines: Experts say the Trump administration has made unsubstantiated claims about Tren de Aragua and the Mara Salvatrucha gang, commonly known as MS-13.

• Gang experts say the threat of Tren de Aragua in the U.S. is overblown and a lot smaller than Trump officials have claimed.
• The administration has repeatedly called MS-13, a gang started in Southern California by Central American refugees from the 1980s civil wars, a transnational gang and has compared it to terrorist groups and organized Mexican cartels.
• Lidia E. Nuño, a Texas State University criminology professor and MS-13 expert, told Axios that MS-13 is a street gang that shows little evidence of sophisticated transnational criminal operations like cartels or the mafia.

I listened to Gabbard's interview with Megyn Kelly. The firings were about the leaks. The misinformation was classified and would have been handled in house.

 

[icanhelp1]

There is no meaningful difference -- no legal argument by which you could say, the Supreme Court has this power but district courts do not.

The constitution! Article III sec II

 

[Politruk]

The constitution! Article III sec II

Nothing says district courts have lesser power. The SCOTUS is different only in that it can overrule them on appeal, and has original jurisdiction in a narrow range of specified matters.

 

[Politruk]

I listened to Gabbard's interview with Megyn Kelly.

You should know better than to believe either of them.

 

[icanhelp1]

Nothing says district courts have lesser power. The SCOTUS is different only in that it can overrule them on appeal, and has original jurisdiction in a narrow range of specified matters.

Nothing in the constitution gives district court judges judicial review.

 

[Politruk]

Nothing in the constitution gives district court judges judicial review.

There is no ground on which they wouldn't have that power if the SCOTUS does, none at all. In fact, a statute saying "We're creating this court but it has no judicial review power" almost certainly would be unconstitutional.

 

[icanhelp1]

Nothing says district courts have lesser power. The SCOTUS is different only in that it can overrule them on appeal, and has original jurisdiction in a narrow range of specified matters.

District court judges are trial judges, although they pretend to exercise judicial review they don't by constitutional law have the legal authority. Precedence under common law is different than constitutional law. IMHO

If the ACLU or other legal entities can forum shop for a judge that would render a favorable decision is very telling, would imply in many cases that decisions made by those judges are biased and compromised. IMHO. 67% of all federal injunctions in the last 100 years were against Trump. That smells of TDS on a grand scale, TDS even affected the courts. SAD!

 

[Politruk]

District court judges are trial judges, although they pretend to exercise judicial review they don't by constitutional law have the legal authority. Precedence under common law is different than constitutional law. IMHO

Any lawyer will tell you that is completely wrong.

 

[Politruk]

67% of all federal injunctions in the last 100 years were against Trump. That smells of TDS on a grand scale, TDS even affected the courts. SAD!

It says a lot more about Trump than about the courts.

 

[dmallord]

All of the 10 million foreign illegal invaders Joe Biden was too mentally damaged to police.

The Alien Enemies Act was a power deliberately granted to the President by the founding generation in Congress, men who understood, far better than you, the necessity of enabling the executive to act swiftly in defense of public safety and against foreign threats. They crafted it with the clear intention of limiting judicial interference, recognizing that in times of national danger, decisions about enemy aliens belong with the political branches, not the courts. They didn’t confuse prudence with recklessness, nor national security with political correctness. You see, Rob, the founding generation were men forged in hardship and principle, tempered like steel. They hadn’t yet been softened by the cultural surrender and ideological confusion that defines today’s woke politics. They built a republic; today’s Democrats seem content to unravel it.

Indeed, the founders were good men and had little inkling that one day a felon would occupy the presidential chair and wreak havoc upon the world. BTW, the felon is doing a good job of unraveling the republic all by himself with his daily whims, his lack of prudence, and his recklessness, and not to mention a total lack of political correctness.

You see, no one envisioned a wannabe dictator gaining the presidency back in the day, and now the felon is unraveling it all by himself. He doesn't need a legal system, nor political systems to impede him. Those systems are so confused that they no longer understand the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[Politruk]

You see, no one envisioned a wannabe dictator gaining the presidency back in the day

Oh, they did. That is why they instituted the Electoral College to prevent some master of "the little arts of popularity" from becoming president.

But the way the FFs conceived it, the EC would elect a president the way the College of Cardinals elects a pope: They would assemble with no prior commitments, look around at the most prominent statesmen of the day, and pick one.

Public participation would be limited to electing the electors, who would not campaign in terms of, "Vote for John Smith -- he'll vote for Thomas Jefferson," but, "Vote for John Smith -- he has good, sound judgment."

 

[dmallord]

Oh, they did. That is why they instituted the Electoral College to prevent some master of "the little arts of popularity" from becoming president.

But the way the FFs conceived it, the EC would elect a president the way the College of Cardinals elects a pope: They would assemble with no prior commitments, look around at the most prominent statesmen of the day, and pick one.

Public participation would be limited to electing the electors, who would not campaign in terms of, "Vote for John Smith -- he'll vote for Thomas Jefferson," but, "Vote for John Smith -- he has good, sound judgment."

'Little arts of popularity' put the felon into office a second time. His character, morality, and deceitfulness are unlike any other before his time in office. He is more like the snake under the tree of the forbidden fruit that tempted Eve. The EC has no relevance to his scenario.

 

[HisArpy]

District court judges are trial judges, although they pretend to exercise judicial review they don't by constitutional law have the legal authority. Precedence under common law is different than constitutional law. IMHO

If the ACLU or other legal entities can forum shop for a judge that would render a favorable decision is very telling, would imply in many cases that decisions made by those judges are biased and compromised. IMHO. 67% of all federal injunctions in the last 100 years were against Trump. That smells of TDS on a grand scale, TDS even affected the courts. SAD!

All congress needs to do is remove jurisdiction in matters other than employment, contract, or immigration, involving the United States, or its officers/administrators, from the District courts and place that jurisdiction with 1 court. If you want to name the US as a defendant, then you have to file with that court and no other District court can accept such a pleading no matter the claims made. This court would have the jurisdiction to place a nationwide injunction against the administration.

This ends the tyrannical rule of the 640 mini-Presidents.

 

[ll74]

All congress needs to do is remove jurisdiction in matters other than employment, contract, or immigration, involving the United States, or its officers/administrators, from the District courts and place that jurisdiction with 1 court. If you want to name the US as a defendant, then you have to file with that court and no other District court can accept such a pleading no matter the claims made. This court would have the jurisdiction to place a nationwide injunction against the administration.

This ends the tyrannical rule of the 640 mini-Presidents.

Lol....This guy thinks Congress will do something......

 

[Politruk]

All congress needs to do is remove jurisdiction in matters other than employment, contract, or immigration, involving the United States, or its officers/administrators, from the District courts and place that jurisdiction with 1 court. If you want to name the US as a defendant, then you have to file with that court and no other District court can accept such a pleading no matter the claims made. This court would have the jurisdiction to place a nationwide injunction against the administration.

This ends the tyrannical rule of the 640 mini-Presidents.

No one on the Judiciary Committee would give that idea five minutes' consideration.

 

[Rightguide]

And everything I said about it remains true -- which you know if you took history in high school.

Everything you say is tainted with bullshit.

 

[Politruk]

Everything you say is tainted with bullshit.

Study the history of the AEA. You'll find I'm entirely right.

 

[Politruk]

Study the history of the AEA. You'll find I'm entirely right.

See here.

 

[Rightguide]

No one on the Judiciary Committee would give that idea five minutes' consideration.

They already did to a degree when they created the Court Of Federal Claims and Article II Immigration Courts.

 

[Rightguide]

There’s nothing in the constitution that grants federal district judges this authority. These judges took this authority because congress is feckless in it’s oversight.

Yep, these nationwide injunctions didn't occur in any kind of numbers until the 1960s.

 

[Politruk]

Yep, these nationwide injunctions didn't occur in any kind of numbers until the 1960s.

The bright shining period of the Warren Court!

 

[icanhelp1]

All congress needs to do is remove jurisdiction in matters other than employment, contract, or immigration, involving the United States, or its officers/administrators, from the District courts and place that jurisdiction with 1 court. If you want to name the US as a defendant, then you have to file with that court and no other District court can accept such a pleading no matter the claims made. This court would have the jurisdiction to place a nationwide injunction against the administration.

This ends the tyrannical rule of the 640 mini-Presidents.

I agree, I made a similar suggestion a while back. It's more of a legislative issue than a Supreme Court issue. IMHO

 

[Politruk]

If you can characterize district court judges as "640 mini-presidents," there is real value in that. We already have an Imperial Presidency -- anything that consolidates and centralizes power in the WH is a bad thing, and any countervailing check should be preserved.