JMM,

Thanks. My impression is that people who make these claims of "illegality" are either very unacquainted with how the legal system works or willfully suspending their understanding because it conflicts with some other idealistic yearning for how they would want the world to operate. But, I suppose that I can be proved wrong in that impression. Are you aware of anyone who has made an argument that reconciles the "illegal war" claim with a legal process by which the court could/should/would realistically concur that, yes, this is illegal? That is - not necessarily an argument that has been made before a Court, but one that has been floated as one that the Court might buy into? There must be some creative argument whereby the Court might at least be willing to concede that the matter is justiciable, even if the Court would ultimately rules for the Executive. And, if not, then why does this "illegal war" argument persist?