Menu
UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting
  • Football
    • 2024 Notre Dame Football Schedule
    • 2024 Notre Dame Roster
    • 2024 Notre Dame Coaching Staff
    • Injury News & Updates
    • Notre Dame Football Depth Charts
    • Notre Dame Point Spreads & Betting Odds
    • Notre Dame Transfers
    • NFL Fighting Irish
    • Game Archive
    • Player Archive
    • Past Seasons & Results
  • Recruiting
    • Commits
    • News & Rumors
    • Class of 2018 Commit List
    • Class of 2019 Commit List
    • Class of 2020 Commit List
    • Class of 2021 Commit List
    • Archives
  • History
    • Notre Dame Bowl History
    • Notre Dame NFL Draft History
    • Notre Dame Football ESPN GameDay History
    • Notre Dame Heisman Trophy Winners
    • Notre Dame Football National Championships
    • Notre Dame Football Rivalries
    • Notre Dame Stadium
    • Touchdown Jesus
  • Basketball
  • Forums
    • Chat Room
    • Football Forum
    • Open Forum
    • Basketball Board
    • Ticket Exchange
  • Videos
    • Notre Dame Basketball Highlights
    • Notre Dame Football Highlights
    • Notre Dame Football Recruiting Highlights
    • Notre Dame Player Highlights
    • Hype Videos
  • Latest News
  • Gear
  • About
    • Advertise With Us
    • Contact Us
    • Our RSS Feeds
    • Community Rules
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Home > Forums > The Open Forum
Login | Register

did you read this part?

Author: und67 (6804 Posts - Original UHND Member)
Posted at 4:59 pm on Mar 17, 2025
View All

In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Truman’s use of the AEA and ruled that the law itself was constitutional (Ludecke v. Watkins, 33 US 160). Importantly, the high court stated that a president’s decision under the Act "precludes judicial review of the removal order." In other words, a judge cannot second-guess the president. The court explained, "The very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion."

the court is not even a player in this arena and that ruling was contradictory to the law as stated in the aea and therefore should not be acted upon. it has no legal standing. the administration does not have to comply to something that has no legal basis.


msm, dnc, antifa, blm: trying to kill america.

Replies to: "did you read this part?"

  • The law supports Trump's deportation of violent gang members, despite judge's errant ruling - und67 - 3:58pm 3/17/25 (22) [View All]
    • This DOJ lawyer needs to have his ticket pulled. [NT] [LINK] - conorlarkin - 7:17pm 3/17/25
    • Chief Judge Boasberg, frmr presiding Judge US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court vs FOX, hmm. - ND521 - 6:16pm 3/17/25
    • Did your law school teach that rulings made by Federal Judges should or could be ignored? [NT] - ND521 - 5:55pm 3/17/25
    • Thanks for posting. Makes sense. [NT] - Hensou - 5:13pm 3/17/25
    • If all a violent illegal criminal needs to do is scream sanctuary, we have a bigger problem [NT] - LanceManion - 4:58pm 3/17/25
    • Fine, then an appellate court will overrule the judge. [LINK] - Chris94 - 4:39pm 3/17/25
      • did you read this part? - und67 - 4:59pm 3/17/25
        • Up to U.S. Court(s) to decide if using a wartime law to deport people is appropriate. [NT] - ND521 - 6:19pm 3/17/25
        • He refuses to acknowledge your well made point. [NT] - Hensou - 5:14pm 3/17/25
          • It wasn't his point. And it is a legal argument, one that the appellate court will consider. - Chris94 - 5:17pm 3/17/25
            • the tro has no legal standing. there should be no appellate or any other court. [NT] - und67 - 5:32pm 3/17/25
              • TROs are temporary. [NT] - ND521 - 6:27pm 3/17/25
              • Again, that is not your call, nor is it the call of Trump's lawyers. [NT] - Chris94 - 5:36pm 3/17/25
                • By law, it is Trump’s call. [NT] - Hensou - 5:40pm 3/17/25
            • Whose point was it? [NT] - Hensou - 5:22pm 3/17/25
    • Marco Rubio said that no one has a right to a visa or a green card, I agree with this. [NT] - iairishcheeks - 4:18pm 3/17/25
      • Everyone does. But no one has a right to ignore a court. [NT] - Chris94 - 4:34pm 3/17/25
        • Where does a court get authority to block presidential actions on immigration enforcement? - iairishcheeks - 6:41pm 3/17/25
        • Of course they do. If the judge is wrong as a matter of law. [NT] - Hensou - 5:12pm 3/17/25
          • Not your call. Not Trump's call. [NT] - Chris94 - 5:17pm 3/17/25
            • Actually, if you read the article, it is Trump’s call. By law. [NT] - Hensou - 5:23pm 3/17/25
    • This! [NT] - Eli - 4:05pm 3/17/25
Close
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • RSS