In those situations, the executive has a legal basis to not comply immediately with a spending decision because it also is required to comply with other congressional mandates or restrictions.
In other words, Congress is not fit to engage in executive action because of contradictory legislation. And by your own admission, the Executive branch cannot comply with contradictory orders. Which is why our Founding Fathers decided that all Executive power rests with the Executive branch. That's why it explicitly states this in the Constitution.
So again, it is not a situation where the executive is refusing to spend authorized funds simply because it disagrees with a program entirely.
Whoa there, Hoss. You just introduced 'motive' into the equation. In other words, the goal posts just moved. It doesn't matter one iota what the Executive Branch's reason is for exercising (or not exercising) Executive power. The Constitution explicitly reserves this power solely for the Executive Branch with zero regard for any agreement or disagreement that branch may have.
Depends. If a law expressly says that something "shall" be done, then there is no discretion to not do the thing being compelled.
Again, where can I find that written in the Constitution? I am very interested in seeing this 'micromanagement clause'.
But criminal laws are not written that way. They define what a crime is, and say what individuals may and may not do, but there is nothing in basic criminal law saying that the executive "shall" prosecute every instance of the crime.
So the flip side of that is if Congress wrote into law that the Executive Branch had to prosecute every instance of jaywalking, that they could somehow compel the Executive Branch to do exactly that? Seriously? Do you have any idea how asinine that sounds? Congress directing US Marshalls to arrest jaywalkers, and then directing US Attorneys to prosecute those cases? Again, where in the Constitution does it grant the Legislature this Executive power?
That being said, there are instances in the criminal law where the word "shall" doesn't leave the government with any discretion, and those mandates are routinely followed.
Where can I find it written in the Constitution where the Executive Branch must spend money if Congress puts the magic word "shall" in the bill?
Mandatory sentencing guidelines, etc.
Even with mandatory sentencing, the Executive Branch has the discretion to release someone early. That's written in the Constitution, too.
I've addressed this before and you did not respond to my point. In those cases you have cited, there generally are laws Congress passed other than the spending authorization that also must be complied with. That may include permitting, or other considerations that are built into the law itself, and that must be complied with.
But we're talking about Executive Authority here. Specifically when it comes to spending. And last time I checked, there was a ton of money earmarked for Superfund cleanup that was still sitting in the Treasury unspent because the EPA didn't feel like spending it. Add to that money for highways, bridges, electric grid improvements, employee training, pensions, etc. that is sitting unspent, usually because of bureaucratic incompetence (not that it matters why). And there isn't anything in the Constitution that compels the Executive Branch to forfeit its Executive power to the Legislature.
Now personally, I believe that Obama could have been impeached for deliberately refusing to enforce immigration laws under the same "take care" provision of the Constitution I referenced previously.
Good luck with that one. You would have a much stronger case pursuing Article IV, Section 4.
But even then, Obama concocted some BS reasons about how he really was complying with the law, and exercising his right to Grant waivers, etc. He never publicly took the position that he had the right to flatly ignore laws simply because he was President.
Oh, so now it only counts if one publicly takes a position?
For the umpteenth time, show me where in the Constitution it grants Executive Power to the Legislature.