How is issuing executive orders negating enforcement of part of the law substantively different from the line-item veto power the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional?
Because the money would still get spent.
Would the money still be spent on enforcing the law created by Congress? Given that the executive order explicitly states that it would not enforce the law for a certain class of people, how can that be interpret as anything other than a "creative reinterpretation" of the law as Congress passed it?
