We have been at war with terrorism for a quarter century. The Alien Enemies Act is fully appropriate.
A corrupt democracy where collusion and law-fare are used to undermine a duty-elected president is already banana republic. Liberals just don’t care as long as they get their way.
You're such a boorish brute, and you are so full of bull excrement one is lost as to where to begin.
You've also established the fact that you are a bigot. I'm not one to engage with bigots, not usually, but at least you don't deny it. It's just like I don't mind talking to a whore, as long as she's honest about it. So, I'll give it one last parting shot, to see if there is anything in that ignorant skull you hide behind that can be penetrated. I'm not going to apologize for the insults, it's just that, what should a bigot expect? The warm, fuzzy, gooey treatment? Puh-leeze.
So, now I see you’ve once again exchanged reasoned argument for a stew of clichés and misapplied legal references, garnished liberally with bluster. How very on-brand.
Let us address your latest attempt at jurisprudential discourse--such as it is. You invoke the
Alien Enemies Act as though it were some talisman against due process. A charming misunderstanding, if one were inclined to be generous. Unfortunately for your argument, the Act applies exclusively to
nationals of countries with which the United States is at war--a category that, last I checked, does not include individuals summarily deported in violation of a standing court order. The notion that the U.S. has been "at war with terrorism" in a manner that justifies
extra-constitutional expulsion is, at best, an imaginative departure from the legal record, and at worst, an intentional corruption of it, though I suspect that you have done so eludes you.
You then lapse into that ever-reliable refuge of the historically illiterate--that any legal challenge to his (Trump's) actions amounts to "lawfare." How unfortunate that
Marbury v. Madison and, indeed, the entire constitutional framework of judicial review have so cruelly conspired against your preferred interpretation. Presidents--yes, even those you venerate--are not autocrats. They are bound by laws, court orders, and due process, much to the chagrin of those who mistake governance for feudal patronage.
As for your concluding flourish--this fevered cry of "banana republic"--one marvels at the irony. The true hallmark of a banana republic is not the application of law to the powerful but rather its selective suspension from them. Your argument, such as it is, unwittingly champions the very authoritarianism you claim to oppose. And you might have had a point--if not for one trifling inconvenience: the sheer mountain of evidence, upheld through motions, testimony, grand juries, and, regrettably for you, the very legal mechanisms you claim to respect. Not to mention the inconvenient reality that Trump didn’t just run the DOJ like an M2 Browning--he promised to. And you and your ilk had no objections then. But, of course, such details tend to elude those whose grasp of the law extends no further than bumper-sticker slogans and internet conspiracies.
