Trump Administration Predictions (2 Viewers)

We also see the Logan Act potentially being violated by Chris Van Hollen. As a senator, he has no authority to represent the executive branch. The Constitution assigns foreign affairs to the executive branch, not the legislative.
 
as there is no invasion or incursion

It is to laugh. If 13,000 people per day were illegally crossing the border and many (admittedly, not all) of them were thugs, criminals, and violent gang members, I think either invasion or incursion would apply. For the Abrego-Garcia case, he WON in court because the 9-0 SCOTUS decision made it clear that a judge has no business interfering in USA interactions with foreign sovereign nations. The "facilitate" simply means that if El Salvador wants to eject him, the USA would send a plane to pick him up.

The question of "OR" or "AND" is not relevant, as there is no invasion or incursion

Hate to tell you how many decisions depended on whether OR or AND was used.
 
It is to laugh. If 13,000 people per day were illegally crossing the border and many (admittedly, not all) of them were thugs, criminals, and violent gang members, I think either invasion or incursion would apply. For the Abrego-Garcia case, he WON in court because the 9-0 SCOTUS decision made it clear that a judge has no business interfering in USA interactions with foreign sovereign nations. The "facilitate" simply means that if El Salvador wants to eject him, the USA would send a plane to pick him up.



Hate to tell you how many decisions depended on whether OR or AND was used.
You are talking about invasion as metaphor. Laws are not metaphors. Congress has not declared war on Venezuela. There are no Venezuela armed forces occupying American territory. The interpretation of laws is up to the Courts, not the President.
 
We also see the Logan Act potentially being violated by Chris Van Hollen. As a senator, he has no authority to represent the executive branch. The Constitution assigns foreign affairs to the executive branch, not the legislative.
The Logan act is of dubious constitutionality and no one has every been convicted under it. Nor does the President have exclusive say on foreign affairs, which is why both houses of Congress have foreign affairs committees.
 
The interpretation of laws is up to the Courts, not the President.

Yet if you don't do something to raise the issue, the courts that have sufficient authority to answer the question don't have the right of original review. So if you don't test the law, you can't know what it actually says in practical terms.
 
IMO unless the person has done some absolutely dastardly thing --- generally speaking, a crime of some kind.
How about abusing his wife. He was arrested twice for that? And she is now afraid to talk about her complaints so she evades the questions.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom