See: Appeals court won’t lift Boasberg’s order blocking Alien Enemies Act
03/26/25 4:18 PM ET
"Mr. O. believed, therefore, that it would be best to vest a discretionally power in the Executive to secure and take care that these men should do no injury. And this could not be looked upon as a dangerous or exorbitant power, since the President would have the power, the moment war was declared, to apprehend the whole of these people as enemies, and make them prisoners of war. And in case of a predatory incursion, made on this country, there might be as much reason for securing some of them as in case of actual war or invasion."
Also see:
ALIENS.
"Mr. Sewall said, the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and Defence of the Country, to whom it was referred to inquire into what measures would be proper to be taken respecting aliens, were of opinion their instructions did not go to a sufficient extent, and directed him to propose to the House the following resolution for adoption:
“ Resolved, That the committee on that part of the President’s Speech which relates to commerce and the defence of the country, be authorized to consider the danger which may result by means of aliens and other disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, and what measures ought to be taken for securing, removing, or otherwise restricting such persons, and to report by bill or otherwise.” SOURCE House of Representative, May, 16th,1798.
.
Let us keep in mind that our very own Supreme Court has emphatically stated "The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
See Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903),
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
Our Supreme Court has also instructed that:
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
So, as it turns out, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson has attached her own meaning to Alien Enemies Act, and it conflicts with the actual legislative intent for which it was adopted.
.
JWK
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?
03/26/25 4:18 PM ET
What Judge Karen Henderson ignores is the actual legislative intent of the Alien Enemies Act expressed during its creation, and gives context to its text, e.g., see H. of R., Alien Enemies, May, 22nd, 1798
"Mr. O. believed, therefore, that it would be best to vest a discretionally power in the Executive to secure and take care that these men should do no injury. And this could not be looked upon as a dangerous or exorbitant power, since the President would have the power, the moment war was declared, to apprehend the whole of these people as enemies, and make them prisoners of war. And in case of a predatory incursion, made on this country, there might be as much reason for securing some of them as in case of actual war or invasion."
Also see:
ALIENS.
"Mr. Sewall said, the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and Defence of the Country, to whom it was referred to inquire into what measures would be proper to be taken respecting aliens, were of opinion their instructions did not go to a sufficient extent, and directed him to propose to the House the following resolution for adoption:
“ Resolved, That the committee on that part of the President’s Speech which relates to commerce and the defence of the country, be authorized to consider the danger which may result by means of aliens and other disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, and what measures ought to be taken for securing, removing, or otherwise restricting such persons, and to report by bill or otherwise.” SOURCE House of Representative, May, 16th,1798.
.
Let us keep in mind that our very own Supreme Court has emphatically stated "The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
See Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903),
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
Our Supreme Court has also instructed that:
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
So, as it turns out, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson has attached her own meaning to Alien Enemies Act, and it conflicts with the actual legislative intent for which it was adopted.
.
JWK
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?
