These are the money quotes IMO...
“The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community,” he continued.
“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.”
(typed in my best Andrew Jackson voice, the founder of the Democrat Party, no Indians or slaves were harmed in typing this comment)
BTTT
I heard Levin rhetorically ask why it takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to determine the constitutional merits of a case, but a singke, lowly District Court judge can overrule the President.
House can impeach, investigate, subpoena him and defund his court. They certainly could make an example of him.
Because he’s aiding these terrorists, he should have his security clearance revoked.
As long as the executive branch enforces the orders of the judiciary, it has power. The problem is that executive branch enforces those orders, even when excessive. While Trump can refuse to enforce a judge’s orders as president, once he leaves office his predecessor is unlikely to continue that policy. Contempt fines will multiply while he is in office, and could be enforced when he leaves, or be passed on to his estate. That is the problem Hamilton’s comments do not address, and Hamilton was one of the strongest proponents of a powerful federal judiciary. The renegade federal judges are proving Hamilton’s political opponents, the Anti-Federalists, were correct in their criticisms of the constitution’s Article III power.
Illegals invaders are entitled to NOTHING from this country.
Any idea just how upset I’ll get when watching the touring Broadway production of Hamilton? I’ve committed to taking my eleven year old granddaughter to it. Am I going to have to deal with a dancing, queer Aaron Burr or such?
Our TDS, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Constitution - corporate press is a bigger problem than the democrat party IMHO.
These corrupt district court “judges” are not
in the Constitution, are not born in this Republic, and
hence their intruding, interference,
and their help, funding, arming,
and use of MS-13 to murder Americans.
§1229a. Removal proceedings
(a) Proceeding
(1) In general
An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.
(2) Charges
An alien placed in proceedings under this section may be charged with any applicable ground of inadmissibility under section 1182(a) of this title or any applicable ground of deportability under section 1227(a) of this title.
(3) Exclusive procedures
Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, a proceeding under this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States or, if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States. Nothing in this section shall affect proceedings conducted pursuant to section 1228 of this title
....
(4) Alien’s rights in proceeding
In proceedings under this section, under regulations of the Attorney General-
(A) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings,
(B) the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government but these rights shall not entitle the alien to examine such national security information as the Government may proffer in opposition to the alien’s admission to the United States or to an application by the alien for discretionary relief under this chapter, and
....
(3) Burden on service in cases of deportable aliens
(A) In general
In the proceeding the Service has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, in the case of an alien who has been admitted to the United States, the alien is deportable. No decision on deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.
(B) Proof of convictions
In any proceeding under this chapter, any of the following documents or records (or a certified copy of such an official document or record) shall constitute proof of a criminal conviction:
(i) An official record of judgment and conviction.
(ii) An official record of plea, verdict, and sentence
....
(4) Applications for relief from removal
(A) In general
An alien applying for relief or protection from removal has the burden of proof to establish that the alien-
(i) satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements; and
(ii) with respect to any form of relief that is granted in the exercise of discretion, that the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion
....
(2) Removable
The term “removable” means-
(A) in the case of an alien not admitted to the United States, that the alien is inadmissible under section 1182 of this title, or
(B) in the case of an alien admitted to the United States, that the alien is deportable under section 1227 of this title.
Wana bet we start seeing one judge rule against another real soon?
“It’s unclear what these individualized hearings would look like”
I’m sure alien criminals have been removed from the US after individualized hearings before.
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948)
No question has been raised as to the validity of these administrative actions taken pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 2526, dated December 8, 1941, 6 Fed.Reg. 6323, issued under the authority of the Alien Enemy Act.
The order recited that the petitioner was deemed dangerous on the basis of the evidence adduced at hearings before the Alien Enemy Hearing Board on January 16, 1942, and the Repatriation Hearing Board on December 17, 1945. The district court which examined these proceedings found that petitioner had notice and a fair hearing, and that the evidence was substantial.
The district court found that:
“The petitioner was born in Berlin, Germany, on February 5, 1890. He was out of Germany for most of the period of 1923 to March, 1933. He returned to Germany in March, 1933, and became a member of the Nazi party. Later he had some disagreements with other members, and, as a result, he was sent to a German concentration camp, from which he escaped March 1, 1934, after being confined for over eight months. Sometime thereafter, he came to this country and published a book, ‘I Knew Hitler’ [’The Story of a Nazi Who Escaped The Blood Purge’ — ‘In memory of Captain Ernst Roehm and Gregor Strasser and many other Nazis who were betrayed, murdered, and traduced in their graves’], in 1937. His petition for naturalization as an American citizen was denied December 18, 1939.”
The petitioner’s attitude was thus expressed in his brief before the district court:
“Fundamentally, it matters not where I live, for I can strive to live the right life and be of service where ever I am. Besides, it may well be a better thing to do the best I can while I can in the midst of a defeated people suffering in body and soul than to be a futile and frustrated something in the midst of a triumphant people breathing the foul air of self-complacency, hypocrisy, and self-deceit.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/160/
dissent extracts from
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948)
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE join, dissenting.
The petition for habeas corpus in this case alleged that petitioner, a legally admitted resident of the United States, was about to be deported from this country to Germany as a “dangerous” alien enemy, without having been afforded notice and a fair hearing to determine whether he was “dangerous.” The Court now holds, as the Government argued, that, because of a presidential proclamation, petitioner can be deported by the Attorney General’s order without any judicial inquiry whatever into the truth of his allegations. The Court goes further and holds, as I understand its opinion, that the Attorney General can deport him whether he is dangerous or not. The effect of this holding is that any unnaturalized person, good or bad, loyal or disloyal to this country, if he was a citizen of Germany before coming here, can be summarily seized, interned, and deported from the United States by the Attorney General, and that no court of the United States has any power whatever to review, modify, vacate, reverse, or in any manner affect the Attorney General’s deportation order. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS has given reasons in his dissenting opinion why he believes that deportation of aliens, without notice and hearing, whether, in peace or war, would be a denial of due process of law. I agree with MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS for many of the reasons he gives that deportation of petitioner without a fair hearing as determined by judicial review is a denial of due process of law. But I do not reach the question of power to deport aliens of countries with which we are at war while we are at war, because I think the idea that we are still at war with Germany in the sense contemplated by the statute controlling here is a pure fiction. Furthermore, I think there is no act of Congress which lends the slightest basis to the claim that, after hostilities with a foreign country have ended, the President or the Attorney General, one or both, can deport aliens without a fair hearing reviewable in the courts. On the contrary, when this very question came before Congress after World War I in the interval between the Armistice and the conclusion of formal peace with Germany, Congress unequivocally required that enemy aliens be given a fair hearing before they could be deported.
The Court relies on the Alien Enemy Act of 1798. 1 Stat. 577, 50 U.S.C. §§ 21-24. That Act did grant extraordinarily broad powers to the President to restrain and “to provide for the removal” of aliens who owe allegiance to a foreign government, but such action is authorized only “whenever there is a declared war between the United States” and such foreign government, or in the event that foreign government attempts or threatens the United States with “any invasion or predatory incursion.”
The powers given to the President by this statute, I may assume for my purposes, are sufficiently broad to have authorized the President, acting through the Attorney General, to deport alien Germans from this country while the “declared” second World War was actually going on, or while there was real danger of invasion from Germany.
Mr. Otis, who was most persistent in his expressions of anti-French sentiments and in his aggressive sponsorship of this and its companion Alien and Sedition Acts, is recorded as saying
“. . . that, in a time of tranquility, he should not desire to put a power like this into the hands of the Executive; but, in a time of war, the citizens of France ought to be considered and treated and watched in a very different manner from citizens of our own country.”
For nearly 150 years after the 1798 Act, there never came to this Court any case in which the Government asked that the Act be interpreted so as to allow the President or any other person to deport alien enemies without allowing them access to the courts. In fact, less than two months after the end of the actual fighting in the first Word War, Attorney General Gregory informed the Congress that, although there was power to continue the internment of alien enemies after the cessation of actual hostilities and until the ratification of a peace treaty, still there was no statute under which they could then be deported. For this reason, the Attorney General requested Congress to enact new legislation to authorize deportation of enemy aliens at that time.
A bill to carry out the recommendations of the Wilson administration was later passed, 41 Stat. 593 (1920), but not until it had been amended on the floor of the House of Representatives to require that all alien enemies be given a fair hearing before their deportation. 58 Cong.Rec. 3366. That a fair hearing was the command of Congress is not only shown by the language of the Act, but by the text of the congressional hearings, by the committee reports, and by congressional debates on the bill. In fact, the House was assured by the ranking member of the Committee reporting the bill that, in hearings to deport alien enemies under the bill, “a man is entitled to have counsel present, entitled to subpoena witnesses and summon them before him and have a full hearing at which the stenographer’s minutes must be taken.”
the purpose of deportation, so far as it was authorized (if authorized) under the 1798 Act, was not to protect the United States from ideas of aliens after a war or threatened invasion, but to protect the United States against sabotage, etc., during a war or threatened invasion.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE MURPHY and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, concur, dissenting.
It is undisputed that, in peacetime, an alien is protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228.
In deportation proceedings, due process requires reasonable notice (Tisi v. Tod, 264 U. S. 131, 264 U. S. 134), a fair hearing (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 326 U. S. 156; Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 208 U. S. 12; Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460), and an order supported by some evidence. Vajtauer v. Commissioner, supra, p. 273 U. S. 106; Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272, 226 U. S. 274. And see Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 454.
The rule of those cases is not restricted to instances where Congress itself has provided for a hearing. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, decided in 1903, so held. The Court in that case held that due process required that deportation be had only after notice and hearing, even though there, as here, the statute prescribed no such procedure, but entrusted the matter wholly to an executive officer.
See United States ex rel. Schlueter v. Watkins, 67 F. Supp. 556, aff’d, 158 F.2d 853;
In the Schlueter case, it was held that the Constitution and the statute do not require a hearing, and thus an alien enemy cannot complain of the character of the hearing he did receive. 67 F. Supp. at 565.
The Court said, 189 U.S. p. 189 U. S. 101:
“. . . no person shall be deprived of his liberty without opportunity at some time, to be heard before such officers in respect of the matters upon which that liberty depends — not necessarily an opportunity upon a regular, set occasion, and according to the forms of judicial procedure, but one that will secure the prompt, vigorous action contemplated by Congress, and at the same time be appropriate to the nature of the case upon which such officers are required to act. Therefore it is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer at any time within the year limited by the statute arbitrarily to cause an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States. No such arbitrary power can exist where the principles involved in due process of law are recognized.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/160/
“Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge.”
I suspect they would still be deportation worthy.
Hamilton wrote that the courts “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment” and cannot effectuate those judgments on its own.
Then came Andrew Jackson..
“(SCOTUS JUDGE)John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”-Andrew Jackson
Truly concerning this in itself isn’t enough to shut that asshole the hell up...