Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Trump vs. District Judges

Posted on 03/19/2025 2:48:06 PM PDT by 7thson

Question for everyone.

Why can't the Trump administration basically inform these courts - by a nationwide press conference/speech, by a letter, and/or in person DOJ attorneys - that because of the 1948 Supreme Court decision, the only court that the President will pay attention to is the USSC. That this administration will continue to do what it is doing and lower courts have no lawful basis in attempting to dictate Executive policy?

I'm going out to dinner now and will read your responses upon my return.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: judges; lawfare; trump; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Bobbyvotes

None of the TaV gang bangers are citizens.


61 posted on 03/19/2025 4:21:01 PM PDT by silent majority rising (When it is dark enough, men see the stars. Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Bummer.


62 posted on 03/19/2025 4:22:10 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Do the math. L+G+B+T+Q = 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

congress needs to pass a law limiting nationwide injections to the supreme court.


63 posted on 03/19/2025 4:26:12 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

exactly, the court wouldn’t be shy about telling the executive branch or the congress to pound sand if they attempted to infringe on their powers!


64 posted on 03/19/2025 4:27:04 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

assign every Obama and Biden judge to a 1 inch square in northern Alaska.


65 posted on 03/19/2025 4:29:27 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

That would be quite legal for Congress to do.


66 posted on 03/19/2025 4:31:13 PM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson; 7thson
Ludecke explicitly upholds the judicial review of an Alien Enemy Act case for whether there is a declared war, or for enemy alien status.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948)

Held:

1. The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order. Pp. 335 U. S. 163-166.

2. In the circumstances of relations between the United States and Germany, there exists a "declared war" notwithstanding the cessation of actual hostilities, and the order is enforceable. Pp. 335 U. S. 166-170.

3. The Alien Enemy Act, construed as permitting resort to the courts only to challenge its validity and construction, and to raise questions of the existence of a "declared war" and of alien enemy status, does not violate the Bill of lights of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 335 U. S. 170-171.

At 170-71

This brings us to the final question. Is the statute valid as we have construed it? The same considerations of reason, authority, and history, that led us to reject reading the statutory language "declared war" to mean "actual hostilities," support the validity of the statute. The war power is the war power. If the war, as we have held, has not in fact ended, so as to justify local rent control, a fortiori, it validly supports the power given to the President by the Act of 1798 in relation to alien enemies. Nor does it require protracted argument to find no defect in the Act because resort to the courts may be had only to challenge the construction and validity of the statute and to question the existence of the "declared war," as has been done in this case.

See also current law.

Title 50 - War and National Defense
Chapter 3 - Alien Enemies

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-50/chapter-3/sec-21/

50 U.S.C. § 21

Sec. 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-50/chapter-3/sec-22/

50 U.S.C. § 22

§22. Time allowed to settle affairs and depart

When an alien who becomes liable as an enemy, in the manner prescribed in section 21 of this title, is not chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, he shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of his goods and effects, and for his departure, the full time which is or shall be stipulated by any treaty then in force between the United States and the hostile nation or government of which he is a native citizen, denizen, or subject; and where no such treaty exists, or is in force, the President may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-50/chapter-3/sec-23/

50 U.S.C. § 23

§23. Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges

After any such proclamation has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.


67 posted on 03/19/2025 4:41:22 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

Which is too bad.


68 posted on 03/19/2025 4:42:32 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
...or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government...

This is an interesting clause. We aren't at war with Mexico -- yet! -- but we are being invaded by a non-sovereign, i.e., drug gangs declared by the president to be terrorists. This is a gray area, and I'm not sure how the Supreme Court would rule once this gets out of the district courts.

69 posted on 03/19/2025 4:47:15 PM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

Even the Supreme Court has limited authority to say what the President can or can’t do.


70 posted on 03/19/2025 4:50:40 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (What are the personal implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silent majority rising

Re. A blast from the past! Obama was a pioneer in the credit card massive amounts of foreign money, money-laundering schemes. NY Post: Obama campaign accepted illegal foreign Web donations — and may be hiding many more: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/ny-post-obama-campaign-accepted-foreign-web-donation-and-may-be-hiding-more/ Feel free to forward this to investigators and sleuths working on the latest reported ActBlue money laundering scam.


71 posted on 03/19/2025 4:52:08 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner ( retired military officer, natural law, Vattel, presidential, eligibility, natural born Citizen )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

No rescue is needed.


72 posted on 03/19/2025 4:52:49 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (What are the personal implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AFB-XYZ

One of the articles I read today said that he has bent over backwards to do what the courts ask of him, essentially reeling them out until they get so far out, there’s no way for them to go back. And he stands there blameless.


73 posted on 03/19/2025 5:03:43 PM PDT by Dr. Zzyzx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

When organizations work with each other, it’s usually on a level-to-level basis. E.g. president to president. You wouldn’t have lower level employees interfacing, and dictating, with another company without the most senior people filtering, and deciding on, what is being said.

Why should the co-equal branches of government be any different? If lower level courts have an issue with the executive branch, especially POTUS, then the discussion should be held between the SC and POTUS, the SC should not be allowing ‘lower level employees’ run the decision making of the highest level of another branch.

Such issues, from lower level judges, should immediately be escalated to higher levels, up to the SC, before they’re expected to be followed. The structure of this seems all wrong.


74 posted on 03/19/2025 5:08:50 PM PDT by fuzzylogic (welfare state = sharing of poor moral choices among everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

I would think Trump has ability for next SC appointment to appoint some one to take over as Chief Justice, bumping Roberts out of that seat. Roberts is not in good behavior (in line with Constitution and his position abilities) more than once already inTrump’s term

I would think also a number of these other judges are not making remarks or rulings in good behavior (with the Constitution on matters)


75 posted on 03/19/2025 5:18:58 PM PDT by b4me (Pray, and let God change you. He knows better than you or anyone else, who He made you to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
No, it wouldn't. From what I read, it would violate the "good Behavior" clause. Even back in 1802, the courts ruled that the abolishing of districts cannot be vindictive towards particular judges.

We can't send Obama judges to Siberia, but we can send them to Iowa if they're assigned randomly.

I would suggest that Congress mandate that they use the same random algorithm that is used to assign Trump cases.

-PJ

76 posted on 03/19/2025 5:33:50 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ComputerGuy
Exactly.

And then just continue doing what you are doing, and let them take it up to the Supreme Court. By that time - no matter how the SC rules - President Trump will have done most of what he wants to get done.

77 posted on 03/19/2025 5:35:58 PM PDT by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Publius

America will be a distant memory. Probably this very year.


78 posted on 03/19/2025 5:36:25 PM PDT by Lazamataz (I'm so on fire that I feel the need to stop, drop, and roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Publius
This is an emergency wartime power. The requires a "declared war" or the ongoing or threatened invasion by a foreign nation or government. It is legally impossible to declare war against a terrorist group. There can only be a conflict of a non-international nature.

If interpreted to be an enemy government, then captured members would enjoy prisoner of war status, as did the Taliban when they became an official government.

This is the Alien Enemies Act. Not any aliens; enemies.

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed.

alien enemy. (17c) A citizen or subject of a country at war with the country in which the citizen or subject is living or traveling. — Also termed enemy alien.

79 posted on 03/19/2025 6:07:20 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

The Congress has complete power over the DC circuit court. All they have to do is rule that the court has no jurisdiction over the executive branch. End of problem.


80 posted on 03/19/2025 6:33:42 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson