In your post script about the in rem context, are you implying that there is such a thing as "in rem injunctions" and that they can operate on non-parties? If so, I'd be very interested on your thoughts on this Fifth Circuit case involving a personal jurisdiction challenge to a receivership bar order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-10726/23-10726-2024-08-09.html
Regarding the second paragraph of the first section, where you assume for the sake of argument that the government has a strong position, you say that this is still not the way to do it. You say they need to get an OLC opinion and do a bunch of analysis, and not "executive orders that lack the force of law".
Why does all this matter as a constitutional matter? If we assume the act itself (revocation of citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants) is constitutional, why does it matter if the OLC okayed it first? I agree that these things *should* be done, but why do they *need* to be done, according to the constitution? If the president cannot enact this through executive order, what is the correct executive branch office to do so, and why are they in a position to do so when the president himself cannot?
I am not a lawyer, just an unusually informed layman, so forgive me if these are naive or ignorant questions.
In your post script about the in rem context, are you implying that there is such a thing as "in rem injunctions" and that they can operate on non-parties? If so, I'd be very interested on your thoughts on this Fifth Circuit case involving a personal jurisdiction challenge to a receivership bar order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-10726/23-10726-2024-08-09.html
Regarding the second paragraph of the first section, where you assume for the sake of argument that the government has a strong position, you say that this is still not the way to do it. You say they need to get an OLC opinion and do a bunch of analysis, and not "executive orders that lack the force of law".
Why does all this matter as a constitutional matter? If we assume the act itself (revocation of citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants) is constitutional, why does it matter if the OLC okayed it first? I agree that these things *should* be done, but why do they *need* to be done, according to the constitution? If the president cannot enact this through executive order, what is the correct executive branch office to do so, and why are they in a position to do so when the president himself cannot?
I am not a lawyer, just an unusually informed layman, so forgive me if these are naive or ignorant questions.