[wardaddy]

I’m pinging a lawyer but seeking court injunction in cases of national security is not new

I think FDR was challenged on internment and Bund restrictions....and prevailed ....Koretmasu....or something like that

And the Pentagon Papers

And so forth

Maybe even the Bombing of Cambodia....yes it did happen

I think what is new is how district federal judges now routinely issue blanket injunctions for the entire US jurisdiction rather than just their own

Congress has tried and failed to legislate control over that

Trump DOJ should do their legal maneuvering first in New Orleans federal court where sympathetic judges in the fifth circuit from southern states can likely rule his way

[morphing libertarian]

I know it’s not new. But the passage of the Emergency powers act explicitly indicates congress has the power to override with joint resolution. I am advocating Trump test the waiter and tell the judges the argument I have been making.

[WhoisAlanGreenspan?]

Very interesting. Schlesinger v. Holtzman courts action to stop the 1973 bombing of Cambodia.

Justice Thurgood Marshall declined to order the military to stop bombing, writing "the proper response to an arguably illegal action is not lawlessness by judges charged with interpreting and enforcing the laws. Down that road lies tyranny and repression."

The Court said it cannot decide a political question; the constitution vests military matters in the Executive and Legislature.

[Ohioan]

The intellectually dishonest Warren Court should be largely blamed for the deliberate morphing of the Federal Judiciary into a sort of super Legislature, on behalf of Leftist theories. The Constitution, specifically, grants "all" legislative power, provided for, to Congress. Courts are not supposed to Legislate, but simply rule on the specific facts in a specific case. That may be a bit simplistic, because of the importance of precedents, but Warren wreaked havoc on American jurisprudence.

The present border crisis is very real; the emergency goes to preserving the Constitutional intent--as defined in the Preamble, and as implicitly recognized in the reserved power of the States, if actually invaded, to wage war, in Article I, Sec. 10.

Constitutional Overview

[Pelham]

Korematsu vs US (Japanese American internment)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/323us214

New York Times vs US (Pentagon papers)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873

Schlesinger v. Holtzman (Cambodia bombing, war powers act)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlesinger_v._Holtzman