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.
First, it's only in your fevered imagination that I ever "attempted to introduce" any such thing. And second, your posts show that you haven't rejected this false dichotomy. Is the President's power of domestic law enforcement untouchable by Congress - yes or no?
inquest: "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"
No, my conclusions were based upon the court's opinions in all four of the cases I posted.
I didn't say your own conclusions weren't "based" on all four cases. I said that only one of them actually makes the claim about the untouchability of this particular power of the President by Congress, and only in dictum.
Please show me where any part of your sentence has been, as you say, "conveniently amended out"
The part with the three dots. Just jump back to the post you were responding to to see what was in place of the three dots. Roberts (who was not a rabid extremist at all) said in his opening statement at his hearings, "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."
inquest: "Even that being the case, [clause 14] includes laying down the rules of war"
First, such a remark is not even peripherally related to the topic under discussion.
This discussion has nothing to do with warmaking?
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.
That's right, military matters have nothing to do with war. Good thing we have you to clear these things up for us.