The former of which, you say is unregulable by Congress, even though the latter constitutes no less a part of the President's granted powers. Thus you're creating the two-tier system of the President's powers that you claim to disdain.
I'll pass along your advice to the court
The advice is to you, in reading their opinions. You're concluding from their opinions that this particular power of the President is untouchable by Congress, when in fact only your "sealed case" makes such a claim, and even then only in dictum.
To the layman, the term "law" is generally understood to mean "statutes", like those passed by a legislative body. But to a legal professional, that same term encompasses, the Constitution, the statutes as well as the decisions that interpret the Constitution and the statutes.
You mean to legal professionals like John Roberts and Sam Alito? I noticed you conveniently amended out the part of my sentence to you where I cited their disagreement with you. De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.
Clause 14 has nothing to do with "making rules for the government" in the sense of the three co-equal branches of government, it refers only to the military.
Even that being the case, it includes laying down the rules of war. That holds especially true when those rules are designed for the protection of U.S. citizens.
For the umpteenth time, that is incorrect, the two-tier system of powers that you attempted to introduce, and which I rejected, was a system you constructed on the false dichotomy of inherent versus explicit powers. There is no basis in law for such a system, and there is no comparison between that and what the Truong case held. Please stop beating this dead horse.
No, my conclusions were based upon the court's opinions in all four of the cases I posted. And yes, that particular power of the President's is untouchable by Congress, thanks to the Separation of Powers doctrine.
Your charge is demonstrable false, I quoted the entire sentence. Please show me where any part of your sentence has been, as you say, "conveniently amended out": "So you're of the opinion that judges make law."
First, you offered no citation to your claim regarding Roberts and Alito, that I could review for context. Second, there is no indication in your claim whether either one was speaking of "law" in a purely legislative sense or a formalistic sense. Therefore, it made no sense to respond to your point.
First, such a remark is not even peripherally related to the topic under discussion. Second, you are dead wrong on thinking that the 14th clause means Congress can "lay down the rules of war". It means no such thing, you're way off the mark.