Oh, I don't know - law school maybe. But hey, don't take my word for it, listen to what Sam Alito said about presumptively constitutional of acts of congress in his Supreme Court confirmation testimony.
"Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional and I don’t think that saying that is just words.
I think that means something. Members of Congress take an oath to support the Constitution and I think that the presumption of constitutionality means a lot. And I think that judgments that are reached by the legislative branch in the form of findings of fact, for example, are entitled to great respect because of the structure of our government, the fact that the basic policy decisions are supposed to be made by the legislative branch and carried out by the executive branch, and also for the practical reason or the functional reason that Congress is in a better position to evaluate conditions in our country and conditions in our society and to make findings and to determine what’s appropriate to deal with the social and economic problems that we face. So I would certainly approach the question of determining whether an act of Congress is constitutional with a heavy presumption in favor of the constitutionality of what Congress has done. Now, ultimately, Marbury v. Madison decided the question that when a case or controversy comes before the Supreme Court, and the constitutionality of an act of Congress is challenged, it is the duty of the court to decide the question. Unless we were going to go back to 1819, then that’s the practice that the federal courts have to follow. But they should always do that with an appreciation of their limited role and the role that the legislature is supposed to play. "emphasis added
Where did Alito get such a "foreign" concept (at least to you)? Well, I'm guessing he has read a number of Supreme Court decisions, like this one written by Rhenquist, and this one, that said...
...The 1992 Cable Act, like all Acts of Congress, is presumptively constitutional. As such, it "should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by this Court...."
"You are way, way out of your depth here. Read more, write less."
Whatever my depth may or may not be, and whatever I read or don't read, you've pretty clearly established that whatever you write, although thoroughly entertaining (but not in the good way) should be ignored for merit - violently.
All of your authorities deal with the proper exercise of the judicial function. They have nothing whatever to do with the scope of executive authority which is what we are talking about.
Of course judges shouldn't strike down statutes lightly or ignore the congressional judgment of constitutional validity that is implied every time a statute passes. That has nothing to do with the bizarre and ignorant idea that a President is bound to obey any congressional pronouncement unless and until the Supreme Court tells him he needn't.
There is no shadow of an argument for that proposition. There is no precedent, judicial or otherwise for it. It is at odds with the separation of powers. It is, in sum a lunatic, tin-foil helmet paranoid fantasy masquerading as a legal argument. If you do have a law degree you should be profoundly ashamed, and your teachers should be more so.