this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
492 points (96.1% liked)

politics

23387 readers
3844 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes the wartime Act? Is the us at war?

"The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the U.S. President to detain or deport individuals from enemy nations during wartime or in response to threats against the U.S."

Congress is the only one that can declare war, correct, but the President doesn't need a war to be declared by congress in order to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. A quick google, which I have repeatedly encouraged you to do if you doubt what I'm saying, would have shown you this information right away. It's not hidden.

Oh so, the stay of deportation was perfectly fine, not by an “activist” judge.

Irellevant. Activist judge or not, the stay of deportation is overruled by the Alien Enemies Act.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (7 children)

It's literally a wartime Act.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained

You should try googling sometime yourself.

Irellevant. Activist judge or not, the stay of deportation is overruled by the Alien Enemies Act.

Irrelevant when an activist president used a wartime Act outside of war.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The government isn’t invading.

The President of the USA decides if there is an invasion or predatory incursion, that’s the point. Not congress, not you - the president.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Yes And the precedent of is an incursion or predatory invasion are clear, what else is clear is that this situation is neither of those, so the act was used under false presences, so the president is, as per usual flaunting the rule of law, it was invoked incorrectly, and falsely, as there is no incursion or predatory invasion

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

The president does have the power during wartime… which the president doesnt get to decide, congress does.

I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out to you, because even your own links specifically say it, but you're wrong. It can be invoked during wartime OR when there is an invasion or predatory incursion which is at the discretion of the President. "Or" is the key word here that you don't seem to be understanding.

Congress decides when it is "wartime".

The President decides when there is an ongoing invasion or predatory incursion.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

There isn't an invasion or predatory incursions though, that's just factual. Otherwise the president of El Salvador couldn't have come to the us, as they are the "enemy" "invading". That's what you don't seem to be understanding

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I did, there is no ongoing invasion OR predatory incursion. There’s the issue

According to you, but you don't get to decide that. According to the President however, who DOES get to decide if there is, there is. Your own links say this.

If you don't like that the President has the power to do this under the Alien Enemy Act, you should say that instead of saying that the President doesn't have the power to do it when he clearly does.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

No, not according to me according to the real world and what's happening

The president does have the power during wartime.... which the president doesnt get to decide, congress does.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Ok i dont know what the deal is with this "max comment depth" error since you can clearly still go further.

Yes? And did you keep reading? How those words are specifically used during wartime or invasion which this is clearly not?

The president is the one that gets to decide if an invasion is happening, per the act.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

again "max comment depth":

Are you pretending that the last 2 sentences of the text on that image, which I have already pointed out, do not exist? Here, I'll point it out again:

But the president need not wait for congress to invoke the law based on a threatened or ongoing invasion or predatory incursion

This is what the President did, and the act allows for it.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago

I did, there is no ongoing invasion OR predatory incursion. There's the issue

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

apparently we've reached "max comment depth" down below so I'll reply here:

Yes? And did you keep reading? How those words are specifically used during wartime or invasion which this is clearly not?

You mean did I keep reading the very next sentence? I sure did!

The president has inherent authority to repel these kinds of sudden attacks — an authority that necessarily implies the discretion to decide when an invasion or predatory incursion is underway.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago

Kay cause clearly you didn't.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

FROM YOUR OWN LINK:

But the president need not wait for Congress to invoke the law based on a threatened or ongoing invasion or predatory incursion.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Yes? And did you keep reading? How those words are specifically used during wartime or invasion which this is clearly not?