You really want to go through a reading comprehension exercise?
For your sake, yes.
The power to enact the AEA was, through congressional legislation, imbued in the president and the president alone.
So what? There’s a distinction between a power vested and the substance of that power. The two aren’t the same and your flaw is to treat them as the same.
The AEA, a statute passed by Congress, vested a power to the President. Despite that, the law doesn’t leave to the President’s discretion the substance of that power and the written statute determines the substance of that power, and it is the province of the judicial branch to interpret the substance of that power as expressed by the written statute.
There were qualifications upon which the Act could be declared but NONE of those qualifications included congressional or judicial review.
Incorrect. Judicial interpretation of a statute is inherently a component of the judicial branch’s constitutional power of judicial review. The statute doesn’t have to grant to the judicial branch the ability or power of judicial review of said statute, the judicial branch already possesses such authority under the Constitution.
Trump, in his declaration for implementing the Act CLEARLY laid out the reasoning and did so in a manner that absolutely fulfills the qualifications requirement.
That’s your argument, your opinion, which may or may not be true. Regardless, Trump doing so doesn’t foreclose judicial review as judicial review exists and allows to test the veracity of Trump’s actions and reasoning in relation to the words of the statute and their meaning.
If the judiciary disagrees with his reasoning then that's just too bad BUT they can request congress to look into the matter as an abuse of power subject to impeachment.
Not under our Constitutional systems, if SCOTUS disagrees they can, consistent with their Article 3 power, declare Trump’s actions as not authorized by the statute and reverse or affirm a lower court’s ruling upholding Trump’s action or reverse or affirm a lower court’s ruling Trump’s conduct as not adhering to the statute and any corresponding orders or declarations of the lower courts.
What exactly is your source for thinking the judiciary has no role under the Constitution?
The idea that Trump just pulled this whole idea out of his ass makes a good narrative for political "news" commentary but it's completely wrong and IGNORES the stated basis on which the Act was declared.
Clearly addressing someone else or some other view as I never articulated such a view anywhere in this thread or ever, and your soapbox diatribe is irrelevant to my position.
Again, invocation of the act DOES NOT require advice and consent.
“Advice and consent” is in relation to the appointments by the President and is solely a power of the Senate. “Advice and consent” is completely devoid of any relation to the passage of federal laws and the authority of judicial review under the Constitution.
Nowhere in the legislation does the invocation of the Act require judicial review and, as an inherent power granted by congress to the Executive, it implicitly leaves review to congress through impeachment.
Judicial review is a constitutional power under Article 3 of the Constitution, nullifying any requirement this statute authorize or permit judicial review.
Next, “require judicial review” is a misplaced necessary condition as I have never taken the view the statute created such necessary condition.
Finally, Congress granting a power to the President to exercise does not imply judicial review nonexistent, forbidden or impermissible, since judicial review is a constitutional power that neither branch can deny the judicial branch from having or forbid from exercising under the Constitution.
Indeed, the Line Item Veto Act of 96, was a federal statute signed into law and vested power to the President veto, effectively to cancel specific provisions of a bill, such as spending items and targeted tax benefits, without vetoing the entire law.
Despite this law constituting as, in your phraseology, “an inherent power granted by congress to the Executive,” the federal judicial branch, District Court and SCOTUS, exercised judicial review of the law and SCOTUS ultimately determined the law as unconstitutional.
Clinton v City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, (1998).
So no, the statute operating as vesting “an inherent power granted by congress to the Executive” does not “implicitly leaves review to congress through impeachment” such that judicial review is prohibited, as Congress did the same with the Line Item Veto Act and the judicial branch retained its judicial review authority and exercised that authority with respect to the statute.
)
. AND also generally subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign 
www.msnbc.com
