Latest Breaking News

the legal basis cited by Crumb The 1st is completely incorrect. The court decision said the legal basis cited is inapplicable and there is no showing that these people were acting on/sent on behalf of a government and the act talks about being at war. Congress has not declared us to be at war with any country so the application of the legal basis fails on more fronts as well.

You don't get to apply a law allowing bad produce to be returned to people for example just because you want to use some basis to get rid of them. Furthermore your understanding of Constitutional order, it's application, due process, court decisions and the responsibility of parties in a case to abide by those decisions also fails.

First of all we as a country are required to act under our Constitution. It is what gives us any authority to act on anything. Marbury v Madison in 1803 determined that the Courts have the power to review and determine Constitutionality. Also this is sometimes summed up as the power of judicial review. When a case is in court the parties, including the government, are bound by the due process of judicial review. The parties are not just the lawyers in court. It is who they represent in the case and in this case it is the government and the projected deportees.

If the government disagreed with a court decision then due process allows them to ask for a stay by a higher court while they appeal but it does not allow them to simply ignore and fail to comply. If that were the case then any court case about anything could have the same thing happen and under your standards it would be OK. The very least the government did here is violate due process and a finding of contempt could also be found.

Nobody is pleased in having gang members here but the answer is to deport them lawfully. They had them in custody, obviously, and therefore had the ability to keep hold of them while the government went to a higher court or the government came back with a different legal basis applied. Instead in an apparent fit of anger they ignored the court, violated due process and now are doing a celebration over having done so.

If you do claim to really understand the process then your argument here boils down to "the ends justify the means" and the Constitution and due process should be something we apply and adhere to on the basis of how we feel about people or a subject matter.