Trump Invokes Rarely-Used Alien Enemies Act

Saturday, March 15, 2025

President Donald Trump on Saturday invoked the rarely-used Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target a Venezuelan gang he accused of "unlawfully infiltrating" the United States hours after a federal judge temporarily limited its use.

Posted by gracieamazed at 09:35 PM | 26 COMMENTS | permalink

BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Alien Enemies Act Proclamation in a stunning loss for the Administration! open.substack.com/pub/aaronpar...[image or embed]
— Aaron Parnas (@aaronparnas.bsky.social) March 15, 2025 at 7:05 PM

Comments

Do try to keep up ...

Trump Invokes the Alien Enemy Act's Wartime Authority
drudge.com

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-15 09:46 PM

Gracie is STUPID Incarnate.

That Sow is one Toxic Bitych.

She's Too Dumb.

Like,..Totally.

#2 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2025-03-15 10:09 PM

@#2 ... Gracie is STUPID Incarnate.

That Sow is one Toxic Bitych.

She's Too Dumb. ...

I disagree. Strongly.

I've had good discussions with the gracieamazed alias.

While I don't always (OK, rarely) agree with what that alias posts, I remain to be convinced that the ascription your current alias applies is correct.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-15 10:34 PM

"Trump Invokes Alien Enemies Act as Tool for Deportation - Federal Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against it [Updated]" reason.com

That didn't last long. Not likely to survive. Idiots.

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2025-03-15 10:56 PM

"That didn't last long."

Does the judiciary have any power to discipline folks who are clearly just trying to gum up the works at every turn?

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-15 10:58 PM

Yes but only for what they do in court. Not for just being idiots.

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2025-03-15 11:03 PM

"Yes but only for what they do in court. Not for just being idiots."

How about being idiots in court?

Aren't these the same bozos who lost 60 of 61 cases to Marc Elias?

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-15 11:04 PM

There is a fine line between sanctional court conduct and pushing the outer limits of law and precedent. A president pushing the outer limits will get the benefit of the doubt.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2025-03-15 11:21 PM

sanctionable

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2025-03-15 11:22 PM

@#6 ... Yes but only for what they do in court. ...

So, outside of court, the Judiciary can do nothing?

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-15 11:31 PM

Jesus f****g crist, get with the jist of the exchange. Court's have enjoined his stupid but the question was about discipline (sanctions). Idiot.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2025-03-15 11:38 PM

@#11 ... get with the jist of the exchange. ...

I presume that was about my @10 comment.

... Court's have enjoined his stupid but the question was about discipline (sanctions) ...

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

Any enforcement of the decision would likely fall onto the DoJ, which Pres trump (did you listen to his speech?) seems to have in his pocket.

So, yeah, my question may be outside of the gist of the exchange, but I think it is relevant.

So, what say ye?

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-15 11:58 PM

@#11 ... get with the jist of the exchange. ...

I presume that was about my @10 comment.

... Court's have enjoined his stupid but the question was about discipline (sanctions) ...

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

Any enforcement of the decision would likely fall onto the DoJ, which Pres trump (did you listen to his speech?) seems to have in his pocket.

So, yeah, my question may be outside of the gist of the exchange, but I think it is relevant.

So, what say ye?

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-16 12:02 AM

@#11 ... get with the jist of the exchange. ...

I presume that was about my @10 comment.

... Court's have enjoined his stupid but the question was about discipline (sanctions) ...

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

Any enforcement of the decision would likely fall onto the DoJ, which Pres trump (did you listen to his speech?) seems to have in his pocket.

So, yeah, my question may be outside of the gist of the exchange, but I think it is relevant.

So, what say ye?

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-16 12:03 AM

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

Given the lengthy list of flagrantly illegal and/or unconstitutional actions from this administration, I'd like to see an answer to this question.

The courts can stamp their feet and rule rule rule ... but if Trump's hand picked people ignore it because they'll get pardoned or it's immune from any action as being under the power of the executive, what will happen?

More feet stamping and "rulings"?

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2025-03-16 04:14 AM

Invoking part of the Adams Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798?
Beyond stupid.

#16 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-03-16 05:27 AM

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

Given the lengthy list of flagrantly illegal and/or unconstitutional actions from this administration, I'd like to see an answer to this question.
The courts can stamp their feet and rule rule rule ... but if Trump's hand picked people ignore it because they'll get pardoned or it's immune from any action as being under the power of the executive, what will happen?
More feet stamping and "rulings"?
#15 | Posted by jpw

I'd like to know too. I suspect the rulings will make their way to the Supreme Court that will be the final arbiter on these rulings, either ruling very quickly or after months delay. Trump seems confident they will rule in his favor, but if they don't and Trump refuses to comply, what then? Only a successful impeachment could stop him at that point?

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2025-03-16 09:51 AM

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

That is when the Purge begins.

Once the President of the U.S. no longer has to follow the Law then there is no law but martial law and Darwin's Law and survival of the fittest (wealthiest).

Stand back and stand by.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-03-16 12:11 PM

But I'll ask again, if Pres Trump decides that he will not follow the Court decision, what can the Court do to make him follow that decision?

Asha Rangappa @asharangappa.bsky.social
Well, looks like we're already here. The Trump administration willfully defied a court order. Hopefully the court will hold the government in contempt. What happens next is going to tell us exactly what direction we are headed

ChrisJustice @chrisjustice01.bsky.social
SCOTUS created a criminal Frankenstein
And soon it will take their power too
Activists warned for the last decade

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2025-03-16 05:05 PM

Ahhh the mentally retarded defending criminal gangs. Yes please please please keep defending these people.

#20 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-03-16 09:41 PM

#20 is wearing his new meme t shirt today:

"An Immigrant Didn't Steal My Job... Trump Did!"

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2025-03-16 09:44 PM

"Ahhh the mentally retarded defending criminal gangs. Yes please please please keep defending these people.
#20 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES AT 2025-03-16 09:41 PM"

Regardless of what you think, this is not about you.

#22 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2025-03-16 10:05 PM

You're correct, it isn't about me. It's about a political party literally trying to stop the deportation of a criminal gang members. As stated before, that's one of the most idiotic stances a political party could imagine having and yet here we are.

Be honest with me here, are any of you truly okay with them remaining here? Do you feel that these criminal gang members provide a net positive to society?

#23 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-03-16 10:17 PM

" It's about a political party literally trying to stop the deportation of a criminal gang members."

And not about a President who just put himself above the Judicial Branch?!?

Telling, you omitted the word illegal before the word deportation.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-16 10:28 PM

Apparently that attempt at humor went completely over your head.

Now, to answer your question, personally I'm more concerned about any powerful person/party that circumvents/ignores the law. Yes, the law might be imperfect, but if the law is not followed then our republic no longer exists. There are ways to deal with imperfect law.

#25 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2025-03-16 10:28 PM

Two for two on keeping illegal gang members here, thank you both for confirming.

#26 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-03-16 10:33 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Putin Aide Rejects Trump's Temporary Ukraine Ceasefire Offer (42 comments)

Portugal Wobbles on Buying F-35s Because of Trump (27 comments)

Trump Invokes Rarely-Used Alien Enemies Act (26 comments)

Monster Storm Across U.S. (18 comments)

Tulsi Gabbard Revokes Security Clearances of Biden Officials (15 comments)

ICE Returns All Migrants from Gitmo to Stateside Facilities (14 comments)

Musk's DOGE Shutters $1B Affordable Housing Program (13 comments)

Bondi tells Tesla vandals to 'watch out' (12 comments)

Trump's Economic Troubles Put Republicans on the Defensive (12 comments)

Trump and Putin: An Authoritarian Alliance That Poses a Danger to All of Us (12 comments)