Arguments

1. Allowing the president to exercise such freedom of discretion with the legislated
law is fundamentally encroaching upon and damaging of the doctrine of
separation of powers, a principle which the operation of the United States
Government is based on.
2. Such exercised discretion is undermining of the legislative process and as a result,
diminishes legislative power and presents another obstacle to them carrying out
their constitutional duty. By exercising such discretion, especially due to the fact
that it involves money, this translates itself into immense political power that the
president can potentially use for his own personal gain in the future, which
presents a danger. The president (one man) making such a large determination of
what the people do and do not wish to spend their tax dollars on is a gross abuse
of his political office. It is unlikely that he knows better than the entire body of
congress, and as a result this could be simply a political maneuver. Hard earmark?
3. Lineal nature of presidential precedent provides a pathway by which further
presidents can continue to gain power far beyond the scope of their appointed
office. The exact affects of this continuous obtaining of power can not exactly be
calculated, and because of this present an immense danger.
4. The president like any other human, is subject to human nature, and therefore to
human error. By placing quasi-legislative power in the hands of the president, and
by accepting the dangers of lineal nature, too much risk of human error is
concentrated in the hands of one man (the president) rather than being spread out
over 535 (congress). This brings the nations risk overall to intolerable levels and
puts us at a great danger.
5. Allowing the president to do this would reduce the other branches abilities to hold
president accountable for his actions as it serves to blur the lines immensely
between separation of powers by muddling checks and balances.
6. The president enjoys discretion in implementation not in appropriation. Power of
appropriation lies solely with congress due to purse powers and all monetary
powers such as taxation and spending lain out in article 1 section 8. This makes
sense as congress is the body of government closest to the citizens of the united
states, therefore they are the most likely ones who know exactly what the people
want and how to provide for it (in theory)
7. Supreme Court must possess the power to hear this case as it has a constitutional
duty to do so. This is not a political issue but rather it is one of a constitutional
abuse of the presidents powers. As the Supreme Court is charged with hearing
and judging upon controversies of constitutionality, the Supreme Court must have
the power to hear this case and determine a rational judgment. If the court chooses
to step out of every issue involving branches of government and pass it off as a
political question, the Supreme Court could potentially place itself in a position
where it merely stands by while one of the other two branches gains power
beyond constitutional scope and becomes tyrannical.