That's the contention which has yet to be proved.
Constitution trumps the ordinary acts of Congress,
Again, the President is not the Constitution, nor are the President's actions the Constitution. The actions may be Constitutional, but they aren't the Constitution. So when you say the Constitution trumps acts of Congress, you're totally sidestepping the point. Do the President's actions trump Congress's actions when Congress and the President are both acting as authorized by the Constitution (Congress under its lawmaking authority, the President under his implied authority)? How does one branch's implied authority trump the other branch's express authority?
it would be unconstitutional to infringe on the constitutional powers and duties of the President [by withholding tax dollars]. Although it boggles the mind trying to imagine the sort of relief that a court might fashion.
I totally disagree with you there. No court would ever grant relief, because We the People are in no way Constitutionally required to give the President whatever funds he claims to need. I really don't think he can just take our money and do whatever he wants with it. My point is, I believe tax dollars can have some strings attached, because it strikes me as absurd that we can remove the money altogether yet not be able to tell him what to do with the money when we do give it him.
As a wise man once said, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". And the facts here are that the contention has been ably proven by the holding in those numerous appellate court decisions, you derided as "irrelevant".
The President's actions play zero part in determining whether a law enacted by Congress is constitutional. FISA's provisions stand or fall exclusively on their own merit. Nothing the President does, can change that basic fact of law.
The principle of constitutional law elucidated by Justice Marshall over 200 years ago, is controlling irrespective of any "Presidential action" involved, it applies to any enactment by Congress, that infringes upon a power granted the President by the Constitution, and makes such laws null and void. Presidential action is irrelevant to applying this principle.
Why are you arguing this long-settled point of law with me when you should be arguing it with its author, CJ John Marshall? You're entitled to read Marbury any way you want, but you're not entitled to unilaterally change 200 years of settled jurisprudence, because it offends your sense of right and wrong. If you want to campaign to overturn Marbury v. Madison, have at it, just leave me out.
I would have thought that taking you to task for your previous disingenuous hyperbole (post #329) would have been sufficient, but apparently not. To repeat, I neither said, suggested, nor implied that the Constitution "required [the people] to give the President whatever funds he claims to need".
You can't, it would be unconstitutional to do so based on the reasoning you laid out in your previous hypothetical.