My mistake but a minor one. Your argument is with the appeals court decision. They cite to Quirin and Quirin cites the Constitution. Your move.
And not even Quirin corroborates your sweeping claim that the President in the exercise of his war powers is not subject to judicial review at all.
Now you're making it up as you go. I never said anything remotely likely that.
To say that he's not subject to judicial review is to say that he's not subject to the law. And you will find nothing in the Constitution which states something so utterly un-American.
OK Inquest, you have one post to quote me asserting that. If you can't do it, and you can't, then I'll figure you're having a bad day. It happens.
Now you're making it up as you go. I never said anything remotely likely that.
No, of course not. All you did was claim that the judiciary itself is exercising "war powers" whenever it reviews the President's actions for legality. But perhaps you'll forgive me if I don't see the subtle difference between that and what I posted above.