On the executive branch overreach portion it appears congress has some review authority. I am fine with the president being able to preform some actions, but I am always a fan of having their be public or at least congressional visibility and accountability.
And what of the Judicial branch? The bill is trying to ban it from reviewing executive branch actions. The actions of both the legislative and executive branches are subject to the highest law in the land. This bill represents a fundamental attempt to bypass the highest law in the land: The Constitution of the United States of America. The judicial branch enforces a check and balance against illegal acts by the other branches.
So why is this line in here:
“(c) Limitation on judicial review.—A determination or certification made by the Attorney General under subsection (b) shall not be subject to judicial or administrative review.
So why are they attempting to claim their assertions of compliance with the highest law in the land is not subject to judicial review?
That's not how the Constitution works. There's a history of statutes that restrict judicial review over rulemaking. Statutes can say that to clarify the intent of Congress in delegating authority to the executive. To the extent that it's reasonable for them to delegate without review --- where "reasonable" means "the courts agree --- SCOTUS has upheld them.
A law that actually foreclosed on a Constitutional power of an Article III court would simply be held unconstitutional.
This "controversy" strikes me as similar to the routine controversies of Presidential executive orders "making new laws", which, of course, they cannot in general do, but people think they can because it sounds like they can.
