Nat'l Journal: Republicans Close to Violating the Constitution

[MFrohike]

44. I'm a bit confused

I don't quite see how this rises to the level of a constitutional question. This seems to be whether he can legally disburse already appropriated funds. I don't see an encroachment on separation of powers on the face of it. Sure, there's a question of whether it would be legal, but that's quite different from constitutional. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like some people are confusing illegal and unconstitutional.

The nature of the conflict is what determines whether a constitutional case involving a president goes to court. I can think of several cases involving Richard Nixon which attest to that. In this case, there is prior precedent, at least on the appropriations question. There was a case after the Civil War involving Lincoln's disbursements which were approved by Congress after the fact. The Court upheld his actions as constitutional because, as I recall, of the exigency involved and the fact that Congress had given assent, even if a bit late.