In extremis, if it's the President that decides which parts of Congress to implement, then they have broken the separation of powers. Either the Supreme Court s

In extremis, if it's the President that decides which parts of Congress to implement, then they have broken the separation of powers. Either the Supreme Court should explicitly rule that the President can weigh e.g. macroeconomic impacts when choosing not to implement laws Congress passed, or Congress should act to avoid those economic consequences. Aside from today's specific issue, I'm very concerned about the decades-long trend of power being ceded by Congress to the Executive and Judicial branches. This is would be another big jerk in that direction. "Current law thus often catches the executive branch in a vise: Presidents can neither spend money without an appropriation nor refuse to spend funds once Congress has provided them. From both directions, Congress has reinforced its “power of the purse”—its authority to control the use of federal money." - https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-primer-on-the-impoundment-control-act https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-primer-on-the-impound...