In its effort to avoid the Scylla of judicial refusal to review the constitutionality of legislative or executive emergency action, and the Charybdis of declaring unconstitutional emergency action which might be vital to national survival,[722]--i.e., in its efforts to “reconcile the irreconcilables” which Cardozo considered the essence of the judicial function--the Supreme Court has traveled various routes. The majority opinions of the Court, or the concurring or dissenting opinions of individual justices, have at times asserted that (a) the Constitution is a rigorously confining document to be inflexibly applied by the Court in measuring governmental action in war and peace; (b) there exists an emergency power which is above constitutional limitations; (c) the Constitution is a flexible charter permitting government action commensurate with need as measured by the Court. All three of these approaches are characterized by a preoccupation with the question of the existence of the asserted emergency power. Under the first, the Court is guided by a narrow interpretation of the quantum of constitutional emergency power and appears disposed to appraise the validity of asserted authority independently of any consideration of the indispensability of the power exercised for successful resolution of the crisis. Involving covertly virtual acceptance of the principle, _inter arma selent legis_, the second is extremely dangerous; for if applied extensively, it would erode constitutional balance and restraint and perhaps terminate responsible government in time of peril. Insofar as it chooses to be guided by the third and purports to sanction only that which it concedes to be essential for combating an emergency, the Court not only assumes a task for which it is ill-suited but also frequently shirks its responsibilities in the performance thereof. Too often when it dares to condemn as ultra vires action believed unavoidable in the prosecution of a war, it postpones its invalidation until after hostilities have terminated. Such post mortem judicial observations afford most inadequate guides for ascertaining what will be constitutionally permissible in time of crisis. Apart from a few brief illustrations of the aforementioned judicial approaches, we have placed major emphasis upon the Steel Seizure Case [Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)], for in that decision are to be found signally important indications of the most effective contribution which the Federal judiciary hereafter may make in sustaining responsible government. The need for a more extensive review of the Supreme Court’s appraisal of emergency power has been dispelled by Clinton Rossiter’s study of _The Supreme Court and the Commander-in-Chief_.[723]