Your rely on ambiguity - 'governing' in governing body is very different from the kind of 'governing' that a government does. Obviously, a home owner's association doesn't have even a claimed monopoly of force over a given territory.
But of course, this is about the result and not whether or not the logic is actually valid.
I'm actually not, I'm saying that what "government" meant in the early 1800s is "a question for the court" - but I'm pretty sure it didn't unambiguously mean "nation" since the law listed out both.
The issue before the court will be whether Tren de Aragua is covered - Trump admin says it is.
So when Sotomayor says the case shouldn't even be heard because they aren't a "nation" she's prejudging the question before the court on behalf of all the other Supremes. Which I have to say is at least consistent with her "wise Latina" arrogance.
It does seem clear to me that the law was intended as 'any identifiable, organized group of foreigners'. Back then it wasn't just well-formed US / Canada / Mexico as basically all of North America. There were Indian tribes, local and splinter governments, and independent lands. I really doubt they intended for the Navajo to be okay invading us because they weren't a nation-state, or for the government to deport all Shoshone after a Ute incursion.
That seems to me the intent of the "public proclamation of the event" - so it's clear who is getting rounded up and only those people in the group that actually did it.
I'm pretty sure it didn't unambiguously mean "nation" since the law listed out both.
I agree, though the whole definition of 'nation' opens up a whole new can of worms, particularly as it is commonly used.
The issue before the court will be whether Tren de Aragua is covered - Trump admin says it is.
Doesn't seem like the strongest argument to me, but we'll see what happens. I think that Trump admin goes for a lot of unlikely Hail Mary legal arguments, like with the birthright citizenship. I think that is stupid, but it would take a miracle for the court to adopt Trump's position.
It does seem clear to me that the law was intended as 'any identifiable, organized group of foreigners'. Back then it wasn't just well-formed US / Canada / Mexico as basically all of North America. There were Indian tribes, local and splinter governments, and independent lands.
Hey, it's a living constitution. And things change. There weren't any gangs back then, like there weren't any machine guns, so we get to do what we want. Isn't that the argument they use when they want to abuse it for something?
I really doubt they intended for the Navajo to be okay invading us because they weren't a nation-state, or for the government to deport all Shoshone after a Ute incursion.
Right, but they were a nation, which means people. Aren't Indians often called 'X Nation'? If you're right that the original intent was something different, then you're still right.
Your rely on ambiguity - 'governing' in governing body is very different from the kind of 'governing' that a government does. Obviously, a home owner's association doesn't have even a claimed monopoly of force over a given territory.
But of course, this is about the result and not whether or not the logic is actually valid.
I'm actually not, I'm saying that what "government" meant in the early 1800s is "a question for the court" - but I'm pretty sure it didn't unambiguously mean "nation" since the law listed out both.
The issue before the court will be whether Tren de Aragua is covered - Trump admin says it is.
So when Sotomayor says the case shouldn't even be heard because they aren't a "nation" she's prejudging the question before the court on behalf of all the other Supremes. Which I have to say is at least consistent with her "wise Latina" arrogance.
It does seem clear to me that the law was intended as 'any identifiable, organized group of foreigners'. Back then it wasn't just well-formed US / Canada / Mexico as basically all of North America. There were Indian tribes, local and splinter governments, and independent lands. I really doubt they intended for the Navajo to be okay invading us because they weren't a nation-state, or for the government to deport all Shoshone after a Ute incursion.
That seems to me the intent of the "public proclamation of the event" - so it's clear who is getting rounded up and only those people in the group that actually did it.
I agree, though the whole definition of 'nation' opens up a whole new can of worms, particularly as it is commonly used.
Doesn't seem like the strongest argument to me, but we'll see what happens. I think that Trump admin goes for a lot of unlikely Hail Mary legal arguments, like with the birthright citizenship. I think that is stupid, but it would take a miracle for the court to adopt Trump's position.
Hey, it's a living constitution. And things change. There weren't any gangs back then, like there weren't any machine guns, so we get to do what we want. Isn't that the argument they use when they want to abuse it for something?
Right, but they were a nation, which means people. Aren't Indians often called 'X Nation'? If you're right that the original intent was something different, then you're still right.