A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression

[TU Curmudgeon]

They can also be led to a detention facility

Indeed, and they have a legal right to have the lawfulness of their detention determined.

and deported:

Indeed, and they can be LAWFULLY deported as long as the government obeys the laws of the country - not merely because Mr Trump says so.

“As-salamu alaykum! My name is Abdul. I’m from Hamas, and I came to America to join the militia! Where is my gun?”

Sorry, but "coming to America to join the militia" isn't a sufficiency for joining the militia. Please check the statutes.

BTW, the militia is required to provide its own guns.

Yeah, wish Abdul luck at the border with that plan.
Ummm, being a member of "the militia" does not give anyone the "right of entry" in fact you have to be IN the United States of America before the declaration makes you a member of "the militia" - read your statutes.

BTW, you do know that Americans have neither a "constitutional" nor a "statutory right to either enter or leave the United States of America, don't you?

Any such right is the result of some "activist judge" who "made law from the bench" and said that the right is "settled law" and we all know what "settled law" means to the highest court in the United States of America - don't we?

Personally, I would not attempt to open-carry a firearm in a place like a city where people would tend to freak out if they saw it. If I carry a gun, it will be concealed simply because I don’t want anyone, including a potential assailant, to know that I’m armed. And I would want to be on a level playing field with him. That’s why law enforcement agencies ditched revolvers as primary sidearms decades ago.

True, you do have to change with the times. If you induce "the bad guys" to carry more potent firepower because "the good guys" have a propensity to shoot first and then find out if they can invent a reason for shooting later, "the good guys" have to up arm.

I like walking. I have a natural right to walk. It is “absolute” in the sense that it is an inalienable, natural right.

Only as far as public property is concerned.

However, in civil society I don’t have an “absolute right” to walk wherever I want.

See above.

I can’t, for example, stroll into the Oval Office and give Trump a piece of my mind on issues of importance to me, such as U.S. support for Ukraine and NATO and his tariff orgasm.

That is because the Oval Office is NOT "public property".

Normally, if a road or highway is controlled-access there will be a sign indicting that pedestrians are prohibited. If a cop ever tried to tell me that I can’t walk next to a highway without a sidewalk or sign and issue me a citation, he would see me in court.

What is prohibited where I choose to live is "interfering with traffic" (read as "hitchhiking". If you are found walking along a highway here, the cops are more likely than not to give you a ride to the next exit (assuming that you can provide something that more or less resembles a rational reason for walking along a highway).

Hell, I once was hitchhiking in Quebec and the Surete du Quebec officer who stopped me ended up giving me a ride until we were just barely out of view of the police station that he was going to. Of course I was in uniform at the time and the policeman wanted to practice his English, so that might have helped me out a bit.

Care to elaborate? What freedom is that?

The "freedom of the King's Highway" is the right to travel along any public road without let or hindrance. That is why it is NOT illegal to "jaywalk" in the UK (unless specific restrictions are in place [and those restrictions are only 'allowed' (read as 'the people will only stand for them'] on the basis of public safety]). In the US you can be ticketed for walking across the street in the middle of the block in almost any town (regardless of the amount of traffic that that street sees) even residential streets at 10 o'clock at night when you are returning home from watching the hemi-demi-semi prefinals of the "Survivors of Dancing with the Stars of the NASCAR-WWF Monster Truck and Tractor Pull Mud Wrestling Wet Tee Shirt Contest" at your friend's house.

 

[Ahlevah]

You, obviously aren't paying attention and/or don't know what "ethnic cleansing" consists of.

Gas chambers? Death camps? The “Final Solution”? Forced relocations and massacres of Jews on Arab lands while every fifth Israeli is an Arab? Certainly, no one has a better idea of what constitutes “ethnic cleansing” than a Jew.

Of course, Mr Trump is in favor of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, but his motives are purely financial so that's OK - right?

Yeah, I don’t think forced relocations to accommodate “Trump Gaza” is going pass muster when it comes to international law, but Israel was accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing long before the developer from Queens came up with his proposal.

It also depends on how "civil society" defines "proper behaviour".

Yes, each society sets its own set of rules. It makes sense for them to conform to cultural norms. Problems tend to occur when people in one society attempt to force their norms on another.

Except when Mr Trump says that they aren't - as your posts indicate you believe.

No, the Constitution says they’re entitled to due process of law even when Trump says they aren’t. The courts will eventually either get him on the right page, or Democrats will roast Republicans at the ballot box. He is overplaying his hand, as Obama did in his first term with the ACA, where he lost 63 seats and control of the House. He ultimately won re-election in 2012, but largely governed administratively by executive order. Trump is done in four years regardless.

Yep and simply saying it automatically makes any male between the lower and upper age limits for "the militia" a member of "the militia"

Unless you can cite case law saying otherwise, it does not. People
who do not conform to requirements for naturalization under the Immigration and Nationality Act would not be considered members of the unorganized militia. Under 10 U.S. Code § 246, they must have made a “declaration of intention” to become U.S. citizens, and Congress defined what that meant under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

[Ahlevah]

Sorry, but "coming to America to join the militia" isn't a sufficiency for joining the militia. Please check the statutes.

You said saying your intent to become a citizen would suffice for an illegal alien to be considered a member of the “unorganized militia.” Congress defined under federal law what a “declaration of intention” is, and it’s a formal, written application to the government, not a simple statement to any government official:

BTW, the militia is required to provide its own guns.

Members of the “organized militia,” which today includes the National Guard, would be issued weapons. Members of the “unorganized militia,” including members of private militias such as those that would later be incorporated into the Continental Army during the American Revolution, normally provide their own weapons, or they simply serve as a manpower reserve.

BTW, you do know that Americans have neither a "constitutional" nor a "statutory right to either enter or leave the United States of America, don't you?

Yeah, we do, and if the government attempts to deny either it needs to follow a judicial process to explain why it’s denying it.

Any such right is the result of some "activist judge" who "made law from the bench" and said that the right is "settled law" and we all know what "settled law" means to the highest court in the United States of America - don't we?

No, judges don’t grant natural rights, such as the right to walk (if able) or defend one’s life (if able) from a criminal. Likewise, they can’t deny them through judicial fiat, at least from a moral standpoint. That’s why they’re called “inalienable rights.”

True, you do have to change with the times. If you induce "the bad guys" to carry more potent firepower because "the good guys" have a propensity to shoot first and then find out if they can invent a reason for shooting later, "the good guys" have to up arm.

Which came first? The bank robber or drug dealer with a Glock or Sig with a high-capacity magazine, or the cop or FBI agent who ditched his Smith & Wesson revolver for his own semi-automatic sidearm because he was outgunned by the bad guys? A criminal
doesn’t need an incentive to carry the most effective weapon he can. And I certainly would not want to assume he’s going to choose to handicap himself for my benefit in a gunfight.

That is because the Oval Office is NOT "public property".

It is owned by the public, but there are rational reasons for limiting public access to it.

The "freedom of the King's Highway" is the right to travel along any public road without let or hindrance. That is why it is NOT illegal to "jaywalk" in the UK (unless specific restrictions are in place [and those restrictions are only 'allowed' (read as 'the people will only stand for them'] on the basis of public safety]). In the US you can be ticketed for walking across the street in the middle of the block in almost any town (regardless of the amount of traffic that that street sees) even residential streets at 10 o'clock at night when you are returning home from watching the hemi-demi-semi prefinals of the "Survivors of Dancing with the Stars of the NASCAR-WWF Monster Truck and Tractor Pull Mud Wrestling Wet Tee Shirt Contest" at your friend's house.

I always give priority to pedestrians. Even if they want to “jaywalk,” I’ll stop for them if they appear to want to cross. And I’ve never met someone who complained about being given a ticket for jaywalking.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Gas chambers? Death camps? The “Final Solution”? Forced relocations and massacres of Jews on Arab lands while every fifth Israeli is an Arab? Certainly, no one has a better idea of what constitutes “ethnic cleansing” than a Jew.

Except, of course, there is no need for any of those for there to be an ethnic cleansing.

But, you knew that when you wrote - didn't you.

Yeah, I don’t think forced relocations to accommodate “Trump Gaza” is going pass muster when it comes to international law, but Israel was accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing long before the developer from Queens came up with his proposal.

That's because the Israelis have been slow walking the ethnic cleansing until they found a President of the United States of America who would support it (provided that they promised him that there would be lots and lots of money in it for him personally).

Yes, each society sets its own set of rules. It makes sense for them to conform to cultural norms. Problems tend to occur when people in one society attempt to force their norms on another.

But that's 'The ***A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N*** Way'. It used to be "The BRITISH Way" and it used to be "The FRENCH Way" and it used to be "The SPANISH Way" and it used to be "The PORTUGUESE Way" and it used to be the way of lots of other countries too. But now it's just 'The ***A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N*** Way'.

No, the Constitution says they’re entitled to due process of law even when Trump says they aren’t. The courts will eventually either get him on the right page, or Democrats will roast Republicans at the ballot box. He is overplaying his hand, as Obama did in his first term with the ACA, where he lost 63 seats and control of the House. He ultimately won re-election in 2012, but largely governed administratively by executive order. Trump is done in four years regardless.

Mr Trump doesn't appear to think so. He is telling everyone that he is serious about being President for more than two terms, and a repeal of section (s) of 61 Stat 380 would provide a means of doing that. That repeal could be easily inserted as a sub-sub-sub-sub clause to some "MUST PASS" legislation and then it would only require finding two people who would be willing to run for office and then resign if paid enough money to set up the ascention of The Speaker (who need not be an elected person at all) to the -throne- Presidency.

Unless you can cite case law saying otherwise, it does not. People
who do not conform to requirements for naturalization under the Immigration and Nationality Act would not be considered members of the unorganized militia. Under 10 U.S. Code § 246, they must have made a “declaration of intention” to become U.S. citizens, and Congress defined what that meant under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

That applies only to those who are permanent residents who want to become US citizens.

The USCIS website clearly states "Use this form if you are a permanent resident and want to declare your intent to become a U.S. citizen.".

That has absolutely no application to anyone who is NOT a "permanent resident".

Admittedly Congress may have thought that it had intended to do so, but it didn't. BTW, in accordance with "TrumpLaw", for the USCIS to "mandate" that a declaration of intent to become a citizen can ONLY be made in one manner is an unconstitutional delegation of delegated power and has to be stopped. Congress has to pass a law that states specifically "A person who wishes to make a declaration of their intent to become an American citizenship shall do so ONLY through the means of the correct and full completion of the form attached hereto as 'Annex A'."

 

[ModernDiogenes]

This 9s an old notion that is important. It encompasses net neutrality issues among other things. Part of net neutrality is equal access by end users to content. Congress ordered broadband be made ubiquitous back in the 90’s. The Ma Bells slapped an FCC approved fee on landline phones the collected on to this day. The rolled that money into their general funds and used it for things for other than bringing things like FiOS into rural areas.

Someone should have gone to pris on behind that. It was theft by fraud.

Anyway, this case is important as if the 5th Circuit is allowed to stand in this Congress will be limited to set standards by policy by which government agencies achieve the aims assigned to them. It will make creating and management of these agencies and their being made accountable for the functions they are charged with much more difficult.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You said saying your intent to become a citizen would suffice for an illegal alien to be considered a member of the “unorganized militia.” Congress defined under federal law what a “declaration of intention” is, and it’s a formal, written application to the government, not a simple statement to any government official:

View attachment 67562685

No federal legislation has specifically mandated that form in that exact form as being necessary. According to "TrumpLaw" that means that any purported "mandate" for the use of such a form is unconstitutional.

Members of the “organized militia,” which today includes the National Guard, would be issued weapons. Members of the “unorganized militia,” including members of private militias such as those that would later be incorporated into the Continental Army during the American Revolution, normally provide their own weapons, or they simply serve as a manpower reserve.

Yep, and they are fined if they don't provide the stuff on the kit list.

Yeah, we do, and if the government attempts to deny either it needs to follow a judicial process to explain why it’s denying it.

Do you want to reconsider that statement. You are going against the words and deeds of **T*H*E** **P*R*E*S*I*D*E*N*T** and such anti-state thought crimes will be persecuted to the fullest extent.

No, judges don’t grant natural rights, such as the right to walk (if able) or defend one’s life (if able) from a criminal. Likewise, they can’t deny them through judicial fiat, at least from a moral standpoint. That’s why they’re called “inalienable rights.”

The right to either enter or leave a country is NOT a "natural right".

Which came first? The bank robber or drug dealer with a Glock or Sig with a high-capacity magazine, or the cop or FBI agent who ditched his Smith & Wesson revolver for his own semi-automatic sidearm because he was outgunned by the bad guys?

A good question and much along the lines of "Who hit back after being hit back first?".

A criminal doesn’t need an incentive to carry the most effective weapon he can.

Make that "that he believes he is likely to require" and you have a deal.

And I certainly would not want to assume he’s going to choose to handicap himself for my benefit in a gunfight.

Given that the average criminal is only slightly less accurate with their handgun than the average police officer is, they are already handicapping themselves if they don't practice shooting as much as you do.

It is owned by the public, but there are rational reasons for limiting public access to it.

"Owned by the public" and "open to the public" do not mean the same thing. Hell, "the public" OWNS all of the tanks that the US Army has, but you aren't going to get very far if you demand to take one for a spin on a sunny summer day.

At law, "private property" means any property (regardless of who owns it) that is NOT "open to the public".

I always give priority to pedestrians. Even if they want to “jaywalk,” I’ll stop for them if they appear to want to cross. And I’ve never met someone who complained about being given a ticket for jaywalking.

That the law is not enforced does not mean that the law does not exist or that it cannot be enforced - witness the law that Mr Trump is using to "justify" his policy of "deportation on accusation of sort of looking more or less like someone who could potentially be related to a theoretical associate of a possible supporter of _[fill in the blank]_ or who says something that I don't like".

 

[StillBallin75]

At least Trump trusts me to own a gun. Many so called liberty-loving Democrats don’t. That makes them hypocrites.

"Take the guns first, due process later" - says the "liberty-loving" but actually just authoritarian President.