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.
I see. So, the Judiciary and I would presume the Legislature are bound by constitutional and statutory law, but the Executive isn't, or something - at least when it comes to making war. What a novel approach. John Yoo would be so proud, as would Barack Obama circa 2011. He has made it a habit, much like Bush, to issue post-legislative statements that he isn't bound by the Act of Congress he just signed into law because he's special, or whatnot.
Are you sure you don't work in Obama's White House? Really, you'd fit right in.
If you're through "educating me" about the primacy of Executive power, you might want to read what Hamilton had to say in Federalist 69 with respect to this issue of Presidential war-making power, where he in part says...
“In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.”
Not enough? How about what Madison said in a letter to Jefferson the matter...
"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."