> The executive can't unilaterally declare something is unconstitutional.
Any of the branches can do that. The courts don't need the permission of Congress or the President to strike down a law. Congress doesn't need anyone's permission to refuse to pass something because they think it's unconstitutional.
Consider what prosecutorial discretion is.
> The impoundment act was passed to prevent exactly this because that's exactly what Nixon did.
Congress passed it, but Congress frequently does unconstitutional things and then one of the other branches has to put a stop to it because that's how checks and balances work.
What do you suppose would happen if Congress passed a First Amendment-violating censorship law, the courts struck it down and then Congress passed a second law saying the courts have to uphold the first one?
Any of the branches can do that. The courts don't need the permission of Congress or the President to strike down a law. Congress doesn't need anyone's permission to refuse to pass something because they think it's unconstitutional.
Consider what prosecutorial discretion is.
> The impoundment act was passed to prevent exactly this because that's exactly what Nixon did.
Congress passed it, but Congress frequently does unconstitutional things and then one of the other branches has to put a stop to it because that's how checks and balances work.
What do you suppose would happen if Congress passed a First Amendment-violating censorship law, the courts struck it down and then Congress passed a second law saying the courts have to uphold the first one?