El Oso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

No in fact it does not say that....did you read it?

Yes, it does. It reads in part, "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,"

According to the Constitution (Article 1, section 8, clause 11)--only Congress can declare war. So when it says "there is a declared war," that means the president cannot use this act without a declaration of war given by Congress.

You like to focus on the or in this clause, and while it does exist, two things are true:
1. Only Trump has said this is not a wartime clause. No other president has every invoked this act without a congressional declaration of war.
2. I think you are misapplying the meaning of "invasion or predatory incursion." An invasion is a military attack. A predatory incursion is a military attack in the context of not only the literal definition (the fine print) of the word but also in the historical context of when this clause was created.

But now we're fighting about which definition of the word we want used because one definition supports my case and another supports yours.

---

---

"Or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated"

Are you just flat out not seeing this part of the sentence?

El Oso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

You are not an attorney are you?

1. Read the Act itself....its does not require a declaration of war for the President to repel and invasion or incursion

[Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States]

"invasion or predatory incursion"....the President has the authority to repel it.

This is not hard to understand...read the text

I am starting to wonder if you even went to Baylor for your education...no one who has a college degree from Baylor can fail to understand the plain text....a declaration of war is not necessary...its just one of the ways the Act might come into force

2. The Federal government says that Tren de Aragua works closely with the current Marxist government in Venezuela...there fore it is a State proxy.

It therefore falls within the act

---

What I do for a living isn't relevant here. I am not providing you legal advice, so I'm good.

I am reading the plain text. Those are military terms. You want to apply the civilian invasion of illegal immigrants as a substitution. I don't think the Founding Fathers meant those words in the 1800s when the act was written. I think everything in this act is military and that needs a declaration of war.

---

You are reading military into it because you want to. There is an invasion. Trump is the only one defending us from that invasion. Stop trying to find lawfare ways to resist the protection of our lives, finances, and culture.

Osodecentx said:

---

How Else Can Due Process Claims Be Resolved, Other Than by a Judge?

---

By the judge's daughter's law firm?

El Oso said:

---

I'm reading military into it because the act was a direct response to a potential military invasion by France.

Again, historical context matters.

---

And warfare changes

Including modern warfare using proxy forces, militia groups, terrorist organizations, criminal cartels, and less easily identifiable actors

Tren de Aargua is a state-aligned terrorist organization....declared so by the United States government

[Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States. TdA operates in conjunction with Crtel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela, and commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking]

El Oso said:

---

I covered that in my response. It's #2. Those are military terms further indicating that this is a wartime act.

---

The word "or" in the statute disagrees with you. If they were just gilding the lily on wartime acts, there wouldn't have been an "or" setting those terms apart from an actual war.