Trump will ignore any court that tries to halt the process. They will have no enforcement mechanism. He will cite “TOTAL IMMUNITY” for any actions he wants to take
His immunity isn’t the issue. That only applies after his term for things he might be prosecuted for (which president never are and almost never should be).
He will need institutions to effect his plans and all of them still serve under law. Of course this is a possibility but I don’t think there’s enough evidence to make affirmative predictions here. I know of no Trump plans to circumvent courts or misuse institutions. He’s RUNNING for presidents according to the rules and has legally submitted himself to every legal process thus far. Right?
The president's power to implement this law without a declaration of war by Congress should be seen as analogous to state powers (under Article I, Section 9) to "engage in War" when "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." The crucial limitation is the requirement of "such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Absent such circumstances, only Congress has the power to start a war. Invoking this statute seems to me to necessarily be the equivalent of a presidential act of war. The statute clearly was designed to respond to an actual act of war: "a declared war" with a "foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion" by a "foreign nation or government."
I also think it's legally impossible to treat immigration as being within the scope of "invasion" or "predatory incursion." The statute was enacted in 1798. Our Constitution was ratified in 1788. In Article I, Section 9, it specifically addressed "Migration" until "the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," and (from ratification in 1788 until 1808) "Congress" was expressly denied the power to prohibit any "Migration" of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit." That prohibition was reiterated in Article V. If migration was within the scope of "invasion" or "predatory incursion," then Congress would have unconstitutionally usurped the power to prohibit it even if a state wanted to permit it.
In 1798, this law was enacted to target French citizens. At that time, the U.S. already was involved in the Quasi-War with France (the French were attacking and seizing American ships). But many states in the South were very pro-French and very anti-Federalist (and the U.S. government then was controlled by Federalists). So, if Trump is correct now, then back in 1798, the U.S. government could have treated migration of French citizens as, itself, an invasion or predatory incursion by France. That clearly wasn't the intent.
If its use were really ‘illicit’ then courts would decide that and stop him. Just because it was passed to deal with much different conditions doesn’t men its use now would be criminal. By definition the legal system in toto cannot be used for (at the time) illegal acts. Right? Am I missing something?
"Invoking it in peacetime to bypass conventional immigration law would be a staggering abuse." Staggering abuse is just Tuesday for the Orange One and his followers.
If it’s an abuse then courts will decide that and halt the plans. That’s why we have judicial review. Trump was already in office and he never defied the judicial branch on such an important policy area. I think it’s going to be okay. I think both sides have people who want to use extrajudicial means but that should always be opposed. Trump (it seems) will legally be elected president and will therefore have the full powers of the office. Democracy!
I agree with DJ. If the American electorate is corrupt enough to elect Trump we should let them enjoy the consequences to the fullest. The premise of this article is that the courts will miraculously hold a line and that Trump and a Republican Congress will somehow observe that line.
Finally why should we expect the majority of this SCOTUS to pay any more attention to the context and plain language of this or any law than they have the 2nd, 4th or 14th Amendments?
When/If Trump is elected we can look forward to the curse of living in interesting times.
I am glad to be seeing this near the end of my life and not the beginning when normal human beings were elected to office.
So Biden Harris violate their oath of office to uphold the law and allow millions of illegal aliens into the country. And Trump can't do anything about it? Sounds like Trump has a lot of work do in Washington.
If he wins, I say let it rip. The voters wanted it, and we deserve to get it good and hard.
Trump will ignore any court that tries to halt the process. They will have no enforcement mechanism. He will cite “TOTAL IMMUNITY” for any actions he wants to take
His immunity isn’t the issue. That only applies after his term for things he might be prosecuted for (which president never are and almost never should be).
He will need institutions to effect his plans and all of them still serve under law. Of course this is a possibility but I don’t think there’s enough evidence to make affirmative predictions here. I know of no Trump plans to circumvent courts or misuse institutions. He’s RUNNING for presidents according to the rules and has legally submitted himself to every legal process thus far. Right?
The president's power to implement this law without a declaration of war by Congress should be seen as analogous to state powers (under Article I, Section 9) to "engage in War" when "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." The crucial limitation is the requirement of "such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Absent such circumstances, only Congress has the power to start a war. Invoking this statute seems to me to necessarily be the equivalent of a presidential act of war. The statute clearly was designed to respond to an actual act of war: "a declared war" with a "foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion" by a "foreign nation or government."
I also think it's legally impossible to treat immigration as being within the scope of "invasion" or "predatory incursion." The statute was enacted in 1798. Our Constitution was ratified in 1788. In Article I, Section 9, it specifically addressed "Migration" until "the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," and (from ratification in 1788 until 1808) "Congress" was expressly denied the power to prohibit any "Migration" of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit." That prohibition was reiterated in Article V. If migration was within the scope of "invasion" or "predatory incursion," then Congress would have unconstitutionally usurped the power to prohibit it even if a state wanted to permit it.
In 1798, this law was enacted to target French citizens. At that time, the U.S. already was involved in the Quasi-War with France (the French were attacking and seizing American ships). But many states in the South were very pro-French and very anti-Federalist (and the U.S. government then was controlled by Federalists). So, if Trump is correct now, then back in 1798, the U.S. government could have treated migration of French citizens as, itself, an invasion or predatory incursion by France. That clearly wasn't the intent.
If its use were really ‘illicit’ then courts would decide that and stop him. Just because it was passed to deal with much different conditions doesn’t men its use now would be criminal. By definition the legal system in toto cannot be used for (at the time) illegal acts. Right? Am I missing something?
"Invoking it in peacetime to bypass conventional immigration law would be a staggering abuse." Staggering abuse is just Tuesday for the Orange One and his followers.
If it’s an abuse then courts will decide that and halt the plans. That’s why we have judicial review. Trump was already in office and he never defied the judicial branch on such an important policy area. I think it’s going to be okay. I think both sides have people who want to use extrajudicial means but that should always be opposed. Trump (it seems) will legally be elected president and will therefore have the full powers of the office. Democracy!
I agree with DJ. If the American electorate is corrupt enough to elect Trump we should let them enjoy the consequences to the fullest. The premise of this article is that the courts will miraculously hold a line and that Trump and a Republican Congress will somehow observe that line.
Finally why should we expect the majority of this SCOTUS to pay any more attention to the context and plain language of this or any law than they have the 2nd, 4th or 14th Amendments?
When/If Trump is elected we can look forward to the curse of living in interesting times.
I am glad to be seeing this near the end of my life and not the beginning when normal human beings were elected to office.
So Biden Harris violate their oath of office to uphold the law and allow millions of illegal aliens into the country. And Trump can't do anything about it? Sounds like Trump has a lot of work do in Washington.