patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,353,788 comments by 15,730 users - HeadSet, Patrick, The_Deplorable online now
« First « Previous Comments 55 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
55
AD
2025 Dec 19, 9:59pm
AD
2025 Dec 19, 9:59pm
HeadSet says
Yes, and go after the VOIP providers like Google Voice, Text Now, Talkatone, etc.
How about taxing phone calls after the first 5 per day? Paying a 5 cent tax per call would hardly burden the public, but would be a massive deterrent to companies that make thousands of junk calls per day. The tax would be paid by the phone company, who would then pass it on to the consumers. That way the phone company would find a way to bill or ban the off shore callers.
Yes, and go after the VOIP providers like Google Voice, Text Now, Talkatone, etc.
« First « Previous Comments 55 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
Syllabus
Argued December 5, 1951
Decided March 10, 1952*
342 U.S. 580
Syllabus
1. The Alien Registration Act of 1940, so far as it authorizes the deportation of a legally resident alien because of membership in the Communist Party, even though such membership terminated before enactment of the Act, was within the power of Congress under the Federal Constitution. Pp. 342 U. S. 581-596.
(a) The Act does not deprive the alien of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 584-591.
(1) The power to deport aliens is inherent in every sovereign state. Pp. 342 U. S. 587-588.
(2) The policy toward aliens is so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the Government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference, and it cannot be said that the power has been so unreasonably or harshly exercised by Congress in this Act as to warrant judicial interference. Pp. 342 U. S. 588-590.
(3) The fact that the Act inflicts severe hardship on the individuals affected does not render it violative of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 342 U. S. 590-591.
(b) The Act does not abridge the aliens' freedoms of speech and assembly in contravention of the First Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 591-592.
(c) The Act does not contravene the provision of Art. I, § 9 of the Constitution forbidding ex post facto laws. Pp. 342 U. S. 593-596.
2. Procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are not mandatory as to proceedings which were instituted before the effective date of the Act. P. 583, n 4.
Page 342 U. S. 581
3. One who consented to the same individual acting both as presiding officer and examining officer in administrative proceedings is without standing, on judicial review, to raise the objection that he was thereby denied procedural due process. P. 583, n 4.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/