Can a President send anyone away to be tortured if he simply claims they are enemies of the State?

Jarod said:
America has a right to exist, but our constitution requires Due Process to people even if they are not Citizens. I did not write it or even vote on it, but is is the supreme law of the United States.
Click to expand...

How much due process do you need! These people (and I use the term loosely) enter the country illegally and are identified and released into the country with court dates, where they proceed to squat in sanctuary shitholes on the taxpayer's dime, and an alarming percentage of them commit heinous crimes.

If we're lucky, they are caught, but local law enforcement is not allowed to cooperate federal agencies, and they are let go. When they are finally held to account by President Trump, you communazis get your panties in a twist and go running to some lefty judge.
 
Callinectes said:
How much due process do you need! These people (and I use the term loosely) enter the country illegally and are identified and released into the country with court dates, where they proceed to squat in sanctuary shitholes on the taxpayer's dime, and an alarming percentage of them commit heinous crimes.

If we're lucky, they are caught, but local law enforcement is not allowed to cooperate federal agencies, and they are let go. When they are finally held to account by President Trump, you communazis get your panties in a twist and go running to some lefty judge.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to dehumanize them like this? Stats actually show that undocumented immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes than citizens.

Do you have any stats for the "alarming percentage" you're referring to?
 
Callinectes said:
How much due process do you need! These people (and I use the term loosely) enter the country illegally and are identified and released into the country with court dates, where they proceed to squat in sanctuary shitholes on the taxpayer's dime, and an alarming percentage of them commit heinous crimes.

If we're lucky, they are caught, but local law enforcement is not allowed to cooperate federal agencies, and they are let go. When they are finally held to account by President Trump, you communazis get your panties in a twist and go running to some lefty judge.
Click to expand...
The problem is that Trump is hiding the manifests. How do you know all are MS-13 gang members? Violent illegals? If only one American was included in the flights to El Salvadorean prisons is that okay with you or is that one too many?

Why is Trump keeping all of this secret if it's as simple as you believe?
 
Jarod said:
Does the Alien Enemies Act supersede the Constitution of the United States?
Click to expand...
This is a nice leading question, it directs the conversation where you want it to go rather than actually asking folks what they think about something. Open ended questions are good, this one is a "yes/no" thing, it tries to limit the responses and reminds me of a lawyer trying to lead a witness to say "no" or "yes" to something without any background information ever entering the picture. It's valid in the context of a courtroom where we've been led to believe that "the whole truth" is not necessary, only "yes or no" answers to the leading questions of attorneys apply.

The first question we should ask is why the law was written... It began with then asking "what if agents of a foreign power invaded our nation?" So, we ask that same thing. If foreign agents invade our nation do they get a bunch of due process? In these cases I think they should get a sped up version of a hearing to ensure they actually are what they say they are... But there is nothing in the law that suggests the courts can determine if they are enemies, that is left to the person with the foreign relations powers, the Executive... So, a hearing to show they are a member of one of the gangs that are determined to be "enemies" based on affiliation with terrorist organizations that are acting against the US? I'd say, yes.

A trial to find out if they are "guilty" of things, etc. Not so much, as foreign enemies that have invaded the nation they are not due that... they just get to go back to where they came from.
 
Damocles said:
This is a nice leading question, it directs the conversation where you want it to go rather than actually asking folks what they think about something. Open ended questions are good, this one is a "yes/no" thing, it tries to limit the responses and reminds me of a lawyer trying to lead a witness to say "no" or "yes" to something without any background information ever entering the picture. It's valid in the context of a courtroom where we've been led to believe that "the whole truth" is not necessary, only "yes or no" answers to the leading questions of attorneys apply.

The first question we should ask is why the law was written... It began with then asking "what if agents of a foreign power invaded our nation?" So, we ask that same thing. If foreign agents invade our nation do they get a bunch of due process? In these cases I think they should get a sped up version of a hearing to ensure they actually are what they say they are... But there is nothing in the law that suggests the courts can determine if they are enemies, that is left to the person with the foreign relations powers, the Executive... So, a hearing to show they are a member of one of the gangs that are determined to be "enemies" based on affiliation with terrorist organizations that are acting against the US? I'd say, yes.

A trial to find out if they are "guilty" of things, etc. Not so much, as foreign enemies that have invaded the nation they are not due that... they just get to go back to where they came from.
Click to expand...
Where these people, and I am not saying they aren’t undesirables, given that hearing? I believe that what the Judge is asking is verification that all of them did indeed experience some kind of hearing. Proof that they are actually what the President says they are

Shouldn’t the President have to present some rationale as to why they are foreign enemies beyond that they are gang members? Currently, there is no actual record of who these individuals are and what they did to get deported from one jail to another jail other than they were in confinement centers

And keep in mind, as noted above, these people aren’t being just deported, or sent back, they are going from one jail to another jail, and I’d wager most aren’t from El Salvador
 
archives said:
Where these people, and I am not saying they aren’t undesirables, given that hearing? I believe that what the Judge is asking is verification that all of them did indeed experience some kind of hearing. Proof that they are actually what the President says they are

Shouldn’t the President have to present some rationale as to why they are foreign enemies beyond that they are gang members? Currently, there is no actual record of who these individuals are and what they did to get deported from one jail to another jail other than they were in confinement centers

And keep in mind, as noted above, these people aren’t being just deported, or sent back, they are going from one jail to another jail, and I’d wager most aren’t from El Salvador
Click to expand...
No, I don't think they were, and that is what should be playing out. However a District Court does not have Federal Authority, and at most they can say you need to stop sending folks away from "this district" until this has been fully appealed, etc. They do not have the authority to bind the Executive to a decision that affects other districts.

Personally I think that is what you'll find from SCOTUS, a ruling that directs them to set up a classified court system that can quickly hear and decide if these folks are legitimately part of the "enemies" as defined by the EO and the law it proceeds from.
 
Damocles said:
This is a nice leading question, it directs the conversation where you want it to go rather than actually asking folks what they think about something. Open ended questions are good, this one is a "yes/no" thing, it tries to limit the responses and reminds me of a lawyer trying to lead a witness to say "no" or "yes" to something without any background information ever entering the picture. It's valid in the context of a courtroom where we've been led to believe that "the whole truth" is not necessary, only "yes or no" answers to the leading questions of attorneys apply.

The first question we should ask is why the law was written... It began with then asking "what if agents of a foreign power invaded our nation?" So, we ask that same thing. If foreign agents invade our nation do they get a bunch of due process? In these cases I think they should get a sped up version of a hearing to ensure they actually are what they say they are... But there is nothing in the law that suggests the courts can determine if they are enemies, that is left to the person with the foreign relations powers, the Executive... So, a hearing to show they are a member of one of the gangs that are determined to be "enemies" based on affiliation with terrorist organizations that are acting against the US? I'd say, yes.

A trial to find out if they are "guilty" of things, etc. Not so much, as foreign enemies that have invaded the nation they are not due that... they just get to go back to where they came from.
Click to expand...
If they are not Citizens, I agree they do not have to be criminally convicted, that would not be the prescribed Due Process. My point is that we cannot let it stand as precedent that a President can simply send someone to El Salvador to be incarcerated because the president says the person is in a gang. That is what happened here and, while this case might/might not be one where it was a good idea, that would lead to serious issues when a president decided someone who threatened his political agenda could simply be shipped away on his word alone.

That is exactly the type of thing the 14th Amendment was built to prohibit.

Sometimes leading questions are important if trying to get a point across to a person who wants to be slippery.

The clear answer to my question is that no law supersedes the Constitution, every American should know that. Its fundamental to what a Constitution is, and Trump's position is that he has such power, if it stands a very dangerous precedent is established.

If Congress passed a law saying that the President can ban individuals from owning guns because they are members of the Democratic party, you would make the same argument using the Second Amendment. All Persons have a right to Due Process when dealing with the power of any of our Governments.
 
Jarod said:
If they are not Citizens, I agree they do not have to be criminally convicted, that would not be the prescribed Due Process. My point is that we cannot let it stand as precedent that a President can simply send someone to El Salvador to be incarcerated because the president says the person is in a gang. That is what happened here and, while this case might/might not be one where it was a good idea, that would lead to serious issues when a president decided someone who threatened his political agenda could simply be shipped away on his word alone.

That is exactly the type of thing the 14th Amendment was built to prohibit.

Sometimes leading questions are important if trying to get a point across to a person who wants to be slippery.
Click to expand...
I hear that, and described exactly that. Sometimes leading questions are a way to try to limit the expression of ideas that lawyers want to avoid. Explanations as to why it is "no" in this case but was not "no" in another, for example.

I will tell you that if you made me swear to tell the whole truth and then tried to limit me to "yes/no" like this I would reject your definition and follow my obligation in the oath I had made.
 
Damocles said:
I hear that, and described exactly that. Sometimes leading questions are a way to try to limit the expression of ideas that lawyers want to avoid. Explanations as to why it is "no" in this case but was not "no" in another, for example.

I will tell you that if you made me swear to tell the whole truth and then tried to limit me to "yes/no" like this I would reject your definition and follow my obligation in the oath I had made.
Click to expand...
I did not limit anyone to yes or no. I asked a yes, no question, but anyone here has a right to ignore the question - OR - answer yes or no, then explain their position.

Like someone could have said...

"No a law does not supersede the Constitution, but this law does not violate the Constitution because..."

Even in Court, when leading questions are allowed, the respondent is not required to limit his answer to "yes or no", the instruction from the Judge is... "Answer the question and then explain your answer."


"Isn't it true you killed Suzy?"

You are not limited to simply saying yes...

You are allowed to say, "yes, because it was the only way to prevent her from killing me first."
 
Jarod said:
I did not limit anyone to yes or no. I asked a yes, no question, but anyone here has a right to ignore the question - OR - answer yes or no, then explain their position.

Like someone could have said...

"No a law does not supersede the Constitution, but this law does not violate the Constitution because..."
Click to expand...
That does not change the why of the leading question. I believe that you have the habit because you are a lawyer and described why lawyers think that.

Then proceeded to give context, to say what I actually think, to drive the conversation into ideas rather than in a direction that I wanted it to be in.
 
Damocles said:
That does not change the why of the leading question. I believe that you have the habit because you are a lawyer and described why lawyers think that.

Then proceeded to give context, to say what I actually think, to drive the conversation into ideas rather than in a direction that I wanted it to be in.
Click to expand...
Nothing about my leading question prevented an explanation.

The poster claimed that the law allowed something, I pointed out that while it may be true that the law allowed it, the law is not in accord with the higher law of the Constitution.
 
Jarod said:
Nothing about my leading question prevented an explanation.

The poster claimed that the law allowed something, I pointed out that while it may be true that the law allowed it, the law is not in accord with the higher law of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The law was written before Amendment 14... That doesn't change that it is constitutional to allow "due process", however it does bring into question how much rights an invading force has in the United States. If a German soldier in WWII invaded, and we put him in Georgetown with my Great Uncle Georg for being German and invading, how much due process would he be afforded?
 
Damocles said:
No, I don't think they were, and that is what should be playing out. However a District Court does not have Federal Authority, and at most they can say you need to stop sending folks away from "this district" until this has been fully appealed, etc. They do not have the authority to bind the Executive to a decision that affects other districts.

Personally I think that is what you'll find from SCOTUS, a ruling that directs them to set up a classified court system that can quickly hear and decide if these folks are legitimately part of the "enemies" as defined by the EO and the law it proceeds from.
Click to expand...
I think it does, why they are titled Federal, which is also why when possible everyone shops around to find a Judge they know might be sympathetic to their case. The irony is that Harry and Mitch, who specializes in making the Courts partisan, latter complained about the shopping

I’d say the SCOTUS is going to focus on the legality of the President employing a centuries old law and skirt the due process consideration
 
archives said:
I think it does, why they are titled Federal, which is also why when possible everyone shops around to find a Judge they know might be sympathetic to their case. The irony is that Harry and Mitch, who specializes in making the Courts partisan, latter complained about the shopping

I’d say the SCOTUS is going to focus on the legality of the President employing a centuries old law and skirt the due process consideration
Click to expand...
I think the lefties might, however I think the majority of the court will focus on what I stated earlier.

I have given my guess as to what the ruling would be and why. Let's see what happens. This is exactly the way things work according to our constitution.
 
Damocles said:
I think the lefties might, however I think the majority of the court will focus on what I stated earlier.

I have given my guess as to what the ruling would be and why. Let's see what happens. This is exactly the way things work according to our constitution.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, they have to first rule on what gave the President, or what the President thinks gave him, the authority to do such, application of the Alien Enemies Act. And from there decide if alien enemies get due process, which could set new precedents down the road
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The problem is that Trump is hiding the manifests.
Click to expand...

Hiding them from who? You?


How do you know all are MS-13 gang members? Violent illegals?
Click to expand...

I don't. Some are TDA, some are probably from smaller, lesser-known gangs. Some aren't violent but just petty criminals, and some are just what we call "bycatch", people who haven't been caught yet, but still crossed the border illegally. They are also called "criminals".

If only one American was included in the flights to El Salvadorean prisons is that okay with you or is that one too many?
Click to expand...

If you're hanging around with a bunch of illegal aliens, and you have no proof you're an American, sayonara Mr. bycatch.

Why is Trump keeping all of this secret if it's as simple as you believe?
Click to expand...

Why did your turnip head jackass keep HIS flights secret? DeSantis didn't, neither did Abbott, and I don't think Trump went through any extraordinary measures to keep these a secret.
 
Callinectes said:
Hiding them from who? You?

I don't. Some are TDA, some are probably from smaller, lesser-known gangs. Some aren't violent but just petty criminals, and some are just what we call "bycatch", people who haven't been caught yet, but still crossed the border illegally. They are also called "criminals".

If you're hanging around with a bunch of illegal aliens, and you have no proof you're an American, sayonara Mr. bycatch.

Why did your turnip head jackass keep HIS flights secret? DeSantis didn't, neither did Abbott, and I don't think Trump went through any extraordinary measures to keep these a secret.
Click to expand...
We, the People. That's why he classified it. Why classify booting fucking Venezuelan illegals/gang-bangers out of the country?

See? Even you don't know who they are.

Again, how do We, the People know? Why the secrecy?

I have no idea WTF you are ranting about. Are you changing the subject? Using whataboutism? I don't know anything about DeSantis or Abbott paying El Salvador $6M to take prisoners.

Here, let me help you:
The Trump administration invoked the state secrets privilege late Monday in its court battle over its use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, again refusing to provide more details about the flights to a judge.

The invocation deems details about the flights a state secret — seeking to limit information to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has vowed to “get to the bottom” of whether the Trump administration violated his order to turn around or halt the flights.
 
Truth Detector said:
:lolup: The definition of mentally unhinged. Take your meds little man Dan. :laugh:
Click to expand...
More of that common suicidal super ego Trumpamengele make America Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist Bicentennial Fourth Reich July of human reproduction medical pseudoscience more perfect union with Islam flaming flying chariot pseudoscience where Federal Lynching KKKidnapping churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom enforcement of thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights - old glorys - old testaments - absentee voting ballots arsonists rhetorical Freudian slip little ChristHitler…..
 
Truth Detector said:
The person that has that sole Constitutional power is the President.
Click to expand...
The Constitution guarantees due process to anyone who is a "person." It specifically says "person", not citizen. That would generally mean that the president cannot just announce a non-citizen is guilty of a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top