Get them declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS and I'll be there on the barricades with you.
Two hundred plus years of interpretation of that section of the Constitution, tradition, common law, and statutory law, has stated the President is empowered with Foreign Affairs, not Congress.
Fine with me provided he doesn't spend my tax dollars without authorization or refuse to spend money that my representatives have decided should be spent.
Where does it say that an annual budgetary foreign aid appropriation statute which requires budgeted funds be expended before a statutory September 30th end of the fiscal year or go unborrowed, somehow trumps the president’s constitutional control of foreign policy?
Well, the annual budget resolution is just that, a concurrent resolution passed by Congress but not signed by the President and not made law. This resolution outlines intent, and you're right that it doesn't obligate the spending of funds.
The Defense Appropriations Act, on the other hand, is statutory, signed by Trump and has the force of law.
Now Congress realized that even though they appropriated money a President may choose not to spend it, which they deemed to be unconstitutional. To protect against this they passed, and Nixon signed into law, the Impoundment Control Act. It obligates the spending of the money unless the President comes back to Congress and requests a rescission, which he didn't in this case. The President can also temporarily defer the spending in a couple of very specific instances, neither of which come into play here.
The premise is the President is obligated by the Constitution to faithfully execute the law as passed by Congress, and as the GAO said
"...unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability".
As I said before, the President can determine foreign policy but Congress controls whether money is spent - or not.
You don’t see Ukrainian corruption as a consideration for withholding funds ‘appropriated by congress’?
Trump discover that appropriated funds are an advanced money laundering scheme...
"...unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability".
Did or did not the funds get obligated before the end of the fiscal year, the statutory requirement included in the law? Oh, they did.
The announcement from the GAO that conflicting policy was not a good enough explanation for withholding the funds is not their call; it is entirely a political statement. The spending authorization itself required an executive determination that sufficient changes be made in the levels of corruption in Ukraine before the release of any aid. Constitutionally, that cannot be delegated by Congress to any one other than the President.
There is nothing in the law that removes the President’s power under the Constitution to decide Foreign Aid and shifts that power over to Congress. That would take an amendment to the Constitution, and I don’t see that here, do you? That is the result of this law and that makes it unconstitutional. SCOTUS has ruled many times that you do not have to wait for a ruling to ignore unconstitutional laws. YOU are a poled steer who is comfortable waiting to be slaughtered. Fine, go join the Democrat Party. Oh, wait, you obviously already are a member; it drips from your every post on FR.