The Judiciary Is Attempting To Seize Executive Power

[Contumacious]

WE THE PEOPLE, MAGADONIANS object to the Politicians in Black Robes attempt to use LAWFARE to seize Executive Power. In order to do so they are IGNORING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT .

The Judiciary Is Attempting To Seize Executive Power​

Biden judge Tanya Chutkan orders EPA not to obey a presidential order to terminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Chutkan was admonished by the US Supreme Court last June for ignoring presidential immunity and rushing a politically motivated case against Trump just prior to election season.

Biden judge Ana Reyes ordered the Defense Department not to enforce a presidential directive to ban transgender people from serving in the military. No Democrat judge blocked the Biden Defense Department’s order to put promotions of white heterosexuals on hold while transgendered, homosexual, and blacks were promoted in their place.

Obama judge James Boasberg ordered planes in flight deporting dangerous immigrant-invader gang members to return the illegal aliens to the US. President Trump called for the lunatic judge’s impeachment, and Republican Supreme Court justice Roberts (no relation) upbraided Trump.

Boasberg’s order is especially egregious as is Justice Roberts upbraiding of Trump. It seems neither Boasberg nor Roberts are sufficiently competent to know that the US Supreme Court has previously ruled that deportations under the Alien Enemy Act are not subject to judicial review.

I predicted that the judiciary would be the main obstacle to American renewal. So many incompetent and unqualified people have been put on the bench that the judiciary is an obstacle to governance. So many judges have been put on the bench because of where they stand on liberal causes such as abortion and who use judicial rulings to legislate their personal preferences that the institution of the judiciary is a dangerous threat to the United States. The only solution is to ignore the corrupt judiciary, or perhaps they should all be removed and we start over.

The US judicial system is so cumbersome that an appeal of a ruling against a president can take longer than a presidential term. This makes it so easy for ideological judges to prevent governance.

The Judiciary Is Attempting To Seize Executive Power - LewRockwell

Biden judge Tanya Chutkan orders EPA not to obey a presidential order to terminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Chutkan was admonished by the US Supreme Court last June for ignoring presidential immunity and rushing a politically motivated case against Trump just prior to election season. Biden...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[Manonthestreet]

Judge blocking Trump deportations played key role in Trump-Russia FISA saga – IOTW Report

Try this on for conflict of interest

 

[Contumacious]

WE THE PEOPLE, MAGADONIANS object to the Politicians in Black Robes attempt to use LAWFARE to seize Executive Power

The Judiciary Is Attempting To Seize Executive Power​

Biden judge Tanya Chutkan orders EPA not to obey a presidential order to terminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Chutkan was admonished by the US Supreme Court last June for ignoring presidential immunity and rushing a politically motivated case against Trump just prior to election season.

Biden judge Ana Reyes ordered the Defense Department not to enforce a presidential directive to ban transgender people from serving in the military. No Democrat judge blocked the Biden Defense Department’s order to put promotions of white heterosexuals on hold while transgendered, homosexual, and blacks were promoted in their place.

Obama judge James Boasberg ordered planes in flight deporting dangerous immigrant-invader gang members to return the illegal aliens to the US. President Trump called for the lunatic judge’s impeachment, and Republican Supreme Court justice Roberts (no relation) upbraided Trump.

Boasberg’s order is especially egregious as is Justice Roberts upbraiding of Trump. It seems neither Boasberg nor Roberts are sufficiently competent to know that the US Supreme Court has previously ruled that deportations under the Alien Enemy Act are not subject to judicial review.

I predicted that the judiciary would be the main obstacle to American renewal. So many incompetent and unqualified people have been put on the bench that the judiciary is an obstacle to governance. So many judges have been put on the bench because of where they stand on liberal causes such as abortion and who use judicial rulings to legislate their personal preferences that the institution of the judiciary is a dangerous threat to the United States. The only solution is to ignore the corrupt judiciary, or perhaps they should all be removed and we start over.

The US judicial system is so cumbersome that an appeal of a ruling against a president can take longer than a presidential term. This makes it so easy for ideological judges to prevent governance.

The Judiciary Is Attempting To Seize Executive Power - LewRockwell

Biden judge Tanya Chutkan orders EPA not to obey a presidential order to terminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Chutkan was admonished by the US Supreme Court last June for ignoring presidential immunity and rushing a politically motivated case against Trump just prior to election season. Biden...

www.lewrockwell.com

Judge blocking Trump deportations played key role in Trump-Russia FISA saga – IOTW Report

Try this on for conflict of interest

50 U.S. Code § 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
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.
(R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

 

[Manonthestreet]

50 U.S. Code § 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
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.
(R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

My post supports yours so why the lecture

 

[WorldWatcher]

the US Supreme Court has previously ruled that deportations under the Alien Enemy Act are not subject to judicial review.

The case was Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), and no the SCOTUS didn't rule that deportations under the AEA were not subject to judicial review.

The case stemmed from an attempted deportation during time of declared war, the cases decision came out years later in 1948.

What they ruled in 1948 was that because we were still in a declared war by Congress, the deportation was proper. The turning point of the case was were we in a decaled war and they said "Yes we are" which allowed the AEA to be triggered.

Case decision below for anyone that actually cares to read it.

WW
.
.
.
.

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

Ludecke v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

 

[Contumacious]

50 U.S. Code § 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
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.
(R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 163-166 (1948)​

 

[Contumacious]

My post supports yours so why the lecture

Love you man, merely emphasizing . Have a great day .

 

[Contumacious]

The case was Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), and no the SCOTUS didn't rule that deportations under the AEA were not subject to judicial review.

The case stemmed from an attempted deportation during time of declared war, the cases decision came out years later in 1948.

What they ruled in 1948 was that because we were still in a declared war by Congress, the deportation was proper. The turning point of the case was were we in a decaled war and they said "Yes we are" which allowed the AEA to be triggered.

Case decision below for anyone that actually cares to read it.

WW
.
.
.
.

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

Ludecke v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 163-166 (1948)​

I take it that English is not your vernacular.

 

[WorldWatcher]

50 U.S. Code § 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
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.
(R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

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

So there are two conditions that can trigger AEA: Declared war and invasion by another government. Read the above portion very carefully and the description clearly applies to actions of foreign government.

A criminal organization is not a government.

[DISCLAIMER: The scum sucking turds can be thrown in an American jail and if a danger to society held without bond while they receive due process. If they (a) a criminal - have a trial, put them in prison, then deport them with their term is done. If they are (b) here illegally, then deport them immediately upon receiving a removal order from the court.)

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

This hyper-partisan Democrat activist pseudo-journalist admits that Trump will win these cases on appeal:

2:40



But, her main concern is that the illegal terrorist gang members be brought back and the lower court judges be obeyed until Trump does win his appeals.

And of course that the judge not be impeached for issuing this obviouly unlawful TRO

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Good God, what if we had a typical weak-willed RINO in office now, who would meekly go along with it and would have turned that planeload of terrorists around, fuel reports be damned?

Which Democrats on here would care to host some of these gang members in your home? Or parents' home where you live?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 163-166 (1948)​

I take it that English is not your vernacular.

I cited the case to YOU.

With a link so that those interested could read the case for understanding.

It precludes judicial review of the order for that individual BECAUSE WE WERE AT WAR and that is one of the conditions that triggers authority.

Maybe you should actually read the case and the justification as to why Ludecke (the petitioner) could be deported. You know, instead of just the bumper sticker version that you have been told.

WW

 

[postman]

50 U.S. Code § 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, ...

What you leave out is that Trump has closed the border, there are no longer any incursions by foreign nationals.

The invasion is OVER, the predatory incursions are OVER. The crisis is OVER.

Ironically Trumps boarder czar has done such a good job, he's made that law no longer applicable.

 

[Contumacious]

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

So there are two conditions that can trigger AEA: Declared war and invasion by another government. Read the above portion very carefully and the description clearly applies to actions of foreign government.

A criminal organization is not a government.

[DISCLAIMER: The scum sucking turds can be thrown in an American jail and if a danger to society held without bond while they receive due process. If they (a) a criminal - have a trial, put them in prison, then deport them with their term is done. If they are (b) here illegally, then deport them immediately upon receiving a removal order from the court.)

WW

We have been invaded by over 15,000,000 unvetted illegals

The Biden Administration was affiliated with the Davos Globalists

Open Borders Bullshit

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/19/davos-world-favors-immigration-and-working-with-others-say-wef.html

 

[Contumacious]

I cited the case to YOU.

With a link so that those interested could read the case for understanding.

It precludes judicial review of the order for that individual BECAUSE WE WERE AT WAR and that is one of the conditions that triggers authority.

Maybe you should actually read the case and the justification as to why Ludecke (the petitioner) could be deported. You know, instead of just the bumper sticker version that you have been told.

WW

You are forgetting that the Biden Junta had NO Constitutional or Statutory Authority to open the borders . NONE.

It open the borders as an act of defiance and support of globalism

That is an act of war

Casus belli​

"Act of War" redirects here. For other uses, see Casus belli (disambiguation) and Acts of war (disambiguation).
A casus belli (from Latin casus belli 'occasion for war'; pl. casus belli) is an act or an event that either provokes or is used to justify a war.<a href="Casus belli - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a><a href="Casus belli - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war, whereas a casus foederis involves offenses or threats against its ally—usually one bound by a mutual defense pact.<a href="Casus belli - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a><a href="Casus belli - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a> Either may be considered an act of war.<a href="Casus belli - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a> A declaration of war usually contains a description of the casus belli that has led the party in question to declare war on another party.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We have been invaded by over 15,000,000 unvetted illegals

The Biden Administration was affiliated with the Davos Globalists

Open Borders Bullshit

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/19/davos-world-favors-immigration-and-working-with-others-say-wef.html

Illegal entry does not trigger AEA, there are two conditions:

• Declared war by Congress
• Invasion by a foreign government

I have no problems deporting illegal aliens in a legal manner.

Trump's unlawful actions in an attempt to bypass the laws he swore to uphold be illegally removing due process isn't they way.

What is funny is you tag my post as "Fake News" when I'm the one that linked to - you know - the actual case for review.

WW

 

[Contumacious]

What you leave out is that Trump has closed the border, there are no longer any incursions by foreign nationals.

The invasion is OVER, the predatory incursions are OVER. The crisis is OVER.

Ironically Trumps boarder czar has done such a good job, he's made that las no longer applicable.

What you leave out is that there are over 15,000,000 illegals in our midst

 

[WorldWatcher]

What you leave out is that there are over 15,000,000 illegals in our midst

That number, while I know why you want to use it to trigger people, doesn't trigger authority under the AEA.

Arrest them, give them due process, deport them - I'm fine with that.

And, in my world, make a large effort to go after those employing them.

WW

 

[Contumacious]

Illegal entry does not trigger AEA, there are two conditions:

• Declared war by Congress
• Invasion by a foreign government

I have no problems deporting illegal aliens in a legal manner.

Trump's unlawful actions in an attempt to bypass the laws he swore to uphold be illegally removing due process isn't they way.

What is funny is you tag my post as "Fake News" when I'm the one that linked to - you know - the actual case for review.

WW

WHAT ?!?!?!?!!?

an INVASION


Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more





in·va·sion
/inˈvāZH(ə)n/

noun
noun: invasion; plural noun: invasions

• an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
  "stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
  
  Similar:
  influx
  
  
  inundation
  
  
  inrush
  
  
  rush
  
  
  flood
  
  
  torrent
  
  
  deluge
  
  
  stream
  
  
  avalanche
  
  
• an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
  "random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
  
  Similar:
  violation
  
  
  infringement
  
  
  interruption
  
  
  disturbance
  
  
  disruption
  
  
  breach
  
  
  
  Google Search
  
  
  

 

[Contumacious]

That number, while I know why you want to use it to trigger people, doesn't trigger authority under the AEA.

Arrest them, give them due process, deport them - I'm fine with that.

And, in my world, make a large effort to go after those employing them.

WW

Fine

Detain them in the El Salvador Supermax unti their cases come up for adjudication

What to know about El Salvador's mega-prison after Trump sent hundreds of immigrants there

A mega-prison where visitation and education are not allowed became Trump's latest tool in his crackdown on immigration, when hundreds of immigrants facing deportation were transferred there.

apnews.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

WHAT ?!?!?!?!!?

an INVASION

You left out part of the law - by a foreign government.

A criminal organization isn't a foreign governemnt.

WW