Isn't this whole thing just a bunch of political grandstanding? Train v. City of New York isn't a constitutional case. So if Congress controls spending, it's a

Isn't this whole thing just a bunch of political grandstanding? Train v. City of New York isn't a constitutional case. So if Congress controls spending, it's a power they gave to themselves. Any other portion of government could likewise determine they control spending. So maybe it goes back to the SCOTUS because they agree to hear another case about it. Maybe they like the idea that the executive branch controls spending? Or maybe they don't after all. The tell the President to stop doing that. But the president does not. Does Congress pass another law reaffirming they control the power for spending? If the executive branch is in charge of running the government and they listen to the President & the President decide's they aren't spending any money, who exactly is going to change that? Would Congress fund another department to change this? Would it also just report to the President? From what I understand it's actually pretty common for the executive branch not to actually be able to spend appropriated money. The simplest case would be if you put out a contract and get no bids on it. There are other cases, like Congress agreeing to fund military submarines for Taiwan. But no one is going to build them internationally and we don't build diesel-electric combat submarines in the US as a matter of policy.