From CGI member Christ:

*************************************

Literal Interpretation Problems

The Constitution is incomplete. I don't like Judges any referring
to prior cases. But here is a grab-bag used for today.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
University of Tex. v. Camenisch
Nken v. Holder
Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan

Trump's power to curtail lies between the Executive & Congress

Article II section II
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

'he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices'

Congress

Section 8

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

We'll figure this out some other time.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
http://constitutionus.com/

The Literal Problem

The Supreme Court makes assumptions, excuses and Policy for the missing pieces not present in the Supreme Document

So based on my quotes above, Article II Section 2, 1

'US Immigration & Customs Enforcement' isn't part of the Army or Navy, so the President may not have authority over the department, unless its under the Pentagon.

The Supreme Court looks for justification in other parts of
the document.

Article II Section 2
'The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America'.

This implies he commands all Executive departments. Which is OK. Except, the document doesn't leave it there. Following that
statement it says in Article II Section 2

'The President can ask Opinions of the Executive departments.'

This clause is totally Unnecessary and even trivial. Its inclusion casts doubt on the President's Power.

As long as the Supreme Court continues to wrestle with this Antique document, they look silly and amateurish.

The Supreme Court crème-de-la-crème should live up to their role as our 'Legal Experts' and admit that the Document needs to be much stronger, rewritten and passed again by the State Legislatures in order to prevent misinterpretation.

CHRIST