Article III does, but you refuse to accept that interpretation, or at least in this discussion, even though there is no other branch that the constitution gives judicial powers to. If you are arguing they don't have that authority, then you are saying that the SCOTUS's rulings are invalid, as they all must pass constitutional scrutiny, because the constitution is the very foundation that every law is built on. Well, actually, they are supposed to pass constitutional scrutiny, but as we have been seeing lately, that is not the case. Which is one reason our country is "falling apart" so to speak.First, as I previously mentioned there is nothing in the constitution that grants the Supreme Court the ability to rule laws unconstitutional. Absolutely nothing.
Regardless though, if you agree that the president can disregard actions he believes to be unconstitutional then we agree.
Without the SCOTUS having such authority, then there would be no way for the checks and balances between branches, to work. With no way to require congress and President to make constitutional laws, as there is no avenue for that to happen, per your argument, because there is no such authority granted in the constitution, to make such a ruling. There would be no way to hold the other two branches accountable to the constitution when making laws if it's not part of the judicial branch.
You have even argued about laws being unconstitutional, and about the SCOTUS Calvin balling rulings because they ruled in favor of laws, that you believe are unconstitutional.. if you seriously believe they don't have that authority.. then how can they be Calvin balling such rulings? What happens to your arguments if the SCOTUS does not have such authority? So, are you saying your past arguments about laws being unconstitutional and their rulings being Calvin Ball rulings just bullshit arguments then? You can't support them on striking down laws, or portions of laws, on constitutional ground if you don't believe they have that authority on a law being constitutional or not. So are you invalidating your own past arguments? It can't be both ways. (note: I am not saying I disagree with your past arguments, I am just pointing out that you are pulling the rug out from under yourself that those arguments where based on)
As for saying we agree: Considering that is not what you said, how can we agree? You said Biden should declare the law unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, not disregard it. (See below) He can disregard it and chose not to follow the law, but Biden does not have the authority to declare any law unconstitutional.. So can he disregard the law.. yes.. can he declare a law unconstitutional.. No!
This shit is so stupid. Biden should declare the debt limit unconstitutional under the 14th amendment and be done with it. If SCOTUS rules otherwise he should ignore them, stating that it would be a violation of his oath of office and the Constitution to follow their order. Biden is on the ‘no global economic catastrophe’ side and Republicans are on the ‘yes global economic catastrophe’ side. It’s an easy win.
What would Republicans do in the face of this? Nothing that matters. Cause a government shutdown? They are going to do that anyway. Impeach Biden? That will go nowhere. Elect to default next time they hold the presidency? Lol.