Throughout the extensive litigation over the AEA, in this case and others, the Trump Administration has claimed the president deserves absolute deference when he claims that an “invasion” exists. The absurd implications of this position were highlighted in yesterday’s argument, when Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Jennifer Elrod (appointed by George W. Bush) asked whether the president could invoke the AEA in response to the “British Invasion” of rock stars, like the Beatles. “What if,” she asked “the [President’s] proclamation said ‘we’re having a British invasion.’ They’re sending all these musicians over to corrupt young minds…. They’re coming over and they’re taking over all kinds of establishments.” Could courts then rule the president’s invocation of the AEA was illegal? In response, Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign admitted the government’s position would require courts to still defer to the president, and allow him to wield the extraordinary emergency powers that can only be triggered by an actual “invasion.”

Could the President Invoke the Alien Enemies Act in Response to the “British Invasion” of Rock Stars Like the Beatles? reason.com

In my opinion the above ought to be evidence of the problems caused by dualistic politics. When one is obliged to support a person or cause completely then there is no room for common sense, and making stuff up becomes a norm. If the President can never be wrong and if the courts cannot that the President is wrong and Congress never opposes the President then you have a Dictator.