Regarding your assertion that I cited no text from the Constitution. The Presidential Oath of office is in the Constitution. Article II, Section I.
This blurb lays out some of the assertions that President’s have made regarding, more have been made outside of legal documents.
Clause 8. Oath of Office
That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to ‘’preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’’ might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution. 102 The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization. 103 And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory but only in passing.
SCOTUS can act to guarantee a Republican form of government under the Constitution, so it can grab jurisdiction if it wants to if a claim is made that the courts are legislating in a State. Doubt they would in this environment, but they could, and it would have been interesting. Can’t think of a better test case actually.
But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution.
President Jackson didn't defy any SCOTUS decision with that veto.
The best you can do is point to "suggestive language" in his statement. Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization.
What court decision did this defy?
103 And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory but only in passing.
Okay, so to support your theory, you have "suggestive" language by President Jackson, as well as the counsel of President Johnson's adverting to it "in passing."
Yeah, that's really solid evidence. /sarcasm. On the other side, we have the language of the Constitution itself, plus 230 years of SCOTUS precedent.
I think it's obvious to any objective observer who wins this argument.
SCOTUS can act to guarantee a Republican form of government under the Constitution, so it can grab jurisdiction if it wants to if a claim is made that the courts are legislating in a State. Doubt they would in this environment, but they could, and it would have been interesting. Can’t think of a better test case actually.
Yes, it would have made for an interesting failure.