>The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect.
>Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance.
It's constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was in the case Train v NYC. They are the ones who determine what laws are constitutional or not. You can disagree but their opinion is what is acted upon.
>the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending
The president must sign spending bills and while he may be overridden with a veto that's the check and balance.
>It's constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it was in the case Train v NYC. They are the ones who determine what laws are constitutional or not. You can disagree but their opinion is what is acted upon.
We're going in circles, I already addressed this.
>The president must sign spending bills and while he may be overridden with a veto that's the check and balance.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
POTUS has no power to execute an unconstitutional law
1. I said "Where does it say he doesn't have to [enforce a law] if it violates the Constitution?"
2. You pasted the 10th amendment - This says the federal government has the powers specified by the constitution and any power not mentioned are for the states unless prohibited
3. Then I asked you how this related to the president not enforcing laws he believes are unconstitutional and you said "If the "United States [government]" doesn't have the power, POTUS in his official capacity doesn't."
>The executive has the power to actually go out and spend the appropriated money. Congress tried to usurp that power around the time of Nixon by stopping executive impoundment. But it's not clear if that's constitutional; it might be now under current SCOTUS interpretations but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS reviews it and find that to be incorrect.
>Personally I think congress usurping power of impoundment is a bright and clear violation of checks and balances built into the constitution that requires two branches to approve of spending before it can actually get spent. DOGE was a valiant attempt to bring us back into constitutional compliance.