Another Fifth Column Judge, Fernandez Rodriguez, subverts the legislative intent of the Alien Enemies Act

[White 6]

Who was the cotus written for? If you say everyone, then you agree that the cotus rights apply to everyone? So you'd have to agree then, that any illegal who crossed into our country from anywhere in thread world, can legally walk into a gun store and buy firearms?

No, I wouldn't. That is just a cheap false connection, not even valid in your own mind, defying basic logic. This isn't a gun control issue.
The late George Carlin had your number.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, I wouldn't. That is just a cheap false connection, not even valid in your own mind, defying basic logic. This isn't a gun control issue.
The late George Carlin had your number.

You're right, it isn't a gun control issue, it's establishing who the cotus was written for. If you think illegals are granted the rights under the cotus, then you agree they also have 2nd amendment rights.

 

[White 6]

So you answer your red herring with another red hereings? We gotta stop this, we're running out of herrings!

Try these. They're great! They heat up fast, on the jeep manifold while going over map and scheme of the maneuver, while you are being re-armed and resupplied in the field.

 

[postman]

.
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”[/I]

This is where common sense has to rein.
If laws are to be interpreted by the intent, and not the words (letter of the law), then there would be no need to write a law with any specificity. Since their intent would correct any errors.

If instead laws were interpreted in their words, if the legislature intended something different as a result, they can always by a simple majority vote correct any error in language.

Secondly, if laws were interpreted by the intent, be careful what you wish for. Because laws worded as health and safety, but the intent was to curb abortion, would be thrown out under the intent being unconstitutional.

 

[WEATHER53]

Constitution of United Stares
Not Constitution for the planet

 

[postman]

Constitution of United Stares
Not Constitution for the planet

Except for the inalienable rights.

 

[WEATHER53]

Except for the inalienable rights.

They have legal rights with issues of humanitarian and theoretical unalienable as debatable. Some rights that citizens have are alienable to illegals. They can’t vote for example

 

[johnwk]

We are not in a declared war with Venezuela, and Venezuelan army has not invaded us.

Please stop twisting yourself in to these unsustainable contortions...

Which is not the only circumstances stated by the "law".

See An act respecting Alien Enemies

" . . . or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States . . . "

 

[johnwk]

You are correct. Actual war is not required.

One thing is certainly true. Our Fifth Column crowd, which constantly defends an open border and flooding the United States with millions of illegal entrant foreign nationals, always accuses others of what they themselves are guilty of.

JWK

They are not liberal or progressive democrat leaders. They are authoritarian socialist revolutionaries.

 

[johnwk]

This is where common sense has to rein.
If laws are to be interpreted by the intent . . .

Interpreted? More to the point is, expounded upon.



What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate and in harmony with our system of law is when its opinion is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[johnwk]

Nearly all judges are recommended by Senators....This one was brought to us by the career RINO scumbag John Cornyn.

Judge Rodriguez's opinion on immigration certainly conflicts with our Founders.​

.

Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 . . . a few years before the creation of the Alien Enemies Act.



"Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor."

Seems to me Judge Rodriguez would have been impeached and punished for his support to fill our country with millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, un-vetted terrorist and religious fanatic foreign nationals.




JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

 

[Care4all]

Which is not the only circumstances stated by the "law".

See An act respecting Alien Enemies

" . . . or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States . . . "

By the government of a foreign Nation finishes those ... (Dots)

A judge ruled as I thought it meant by the simple reading of the Act. It is a WAR TIME Power not meant to be abused so easily.

 

[lennypartiv]

Democrats don't know what war is.

 

[lennypartiv]

The president gets his power IF WE ARE IN A DECLARED WAR with a nation or government or if we are being invaded by a foreign Nation or Government.

Then the president can declare foreigners of that Nation ....alien enemies and hold them or deport them or let them stay free because they are no harm.

This is a WAR POWER.

Why do you think this law covers anyone the president chooses to strip due process rights from, even if not in a war against their Nation or government?

These are red herrings. Trump was elected to get the brown vermin out of our country and that is what he is doing.

 

[Care4all]

These are red herrings. Trump was elected to get the brown vermin out of our country and that is what he is doing.

Trump can do so, simply follow the law when doing it...how hard is that...really?

 

[Care4all]

Democrats don't know what war is.

Actually everyone knows what a declared war is....it is YOU who is now playing dumb...

 

[johnwk]

By the government of a foreign Nation finishes those ... (Dots)

A judge ruled as I thought it meant by the simple reading of the Act. It is a WAR TIME Power not meant to be abused so easily.

According to you, but not according to the very intentions of those who created the Act.

What you ignore is, during the time period (1798) when Congress enacted The Alien Enemies Act, Congress had an unambiguous intention to protect the United States from disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, e.g. on May 16th,1798 we find the following:

ALIENS.

Mr. Sewall said, the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and Defence of the Country, to whom it was referred to inquire into what measures would be proper to be taken respecting aliens, were of opinion their instructions did not go to a sufficient extent, and directed him to propose to the House the following resolution for adoption:

“ Resolved, That the committee on that part of the President’s Speech which relates to commerce and the defence of the country, be authorized to consider the danger which may result by means of aliens and other disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, and what measures ought to be taken for securing, removing, or otherwise restricting such persons . . . ” SOURCE

And later, on May, 22nd, Congressional Record, House of Representatives, page 1791, we find:

“Mr. O. believed, therefore, that it would be best to vest a discretionally power in the Executive to secure and take care that these men should do no injury. And this could not be looked upon as a dangerous or exorbitant power, since the President would have the power, the moment war was declared, to apprehend the whole of these people as enemies, and make them prisoners of war. And in case of a predatory incursion, made on this country, there might be as much reason for securing some of them as in case of actual war or invasion.”___ LINK

As it turns out, all the crap about an actual war being required is made up crap, unsupported by the legislative intent of the AEA.

Judge Rodriguez has taken the liberty to attach his personal views of fairness, reasonableness, and justice to the Alien Enemies Act in order to subvert the very intentions of the Act.


The bottom line is, the very purpose and legislative intent of the Alien Enemies Act was to provide the President with extraordinary power, including unobstructed discretionary deportation power, to deal with and remove aliens from American soil who may pose a threat to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens

JWK

The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Frankenstein]

Interesting. How many did he deport without hearings, and are they all still locked up in foreign prisons on our dime?

Ask Bill if you can keep him off the children long enough

 

[postman]

According to you, but not according to the very intentions of those who created the Act.

What you ignore is, during the time period (1798) when Congress enacted The Alien Enemies Act, Congress had an unambiguous intention to protect the United States from disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, e.g. on May 16th,1798 we find the following:

ALIENS.

Mr. Sewall said, the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and Defence of the Country, to whom it was referred to inquire into what measures would be proper to be taken respecting aliens, were of opinion their instructions did not go to a sufficient extent, and directed him to propose to the House the following resolution for adoption:

“ Resolved, That the committee on that part of the President’s Speech which relates to commerce and the defence of the country, be authorized to consider the danger which may result by means of aliens and other disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, and what measures ought to be taken for securing, removing, or otherwise restricting such persons . . . ” SOURCE

It's clear their intention was to remove or contain all those in this country who might owe allegiance to a foreign power due to their citizenship or status at birth.

But remember
George Washington was a British subject when he was born. While not born in Britain itself, he was born in the British colony of Virginia, and as such, was a subject of the British Crown.

Such an interpretation would mean the father of our country could be deported. Which obviously wasn't their intent when they wrote it.

 

[Billiejeens]

Damn President Trump appointing these 5th column judges.

And Reagan and Bush.

WW

Conservative Judges go bad after being appointed.
A lot

A phenomenon that the left never incures for some reason