Has the government's right to mow down civilians with helicopter-mounted machine guns been tested in the Supreme Court lately?

That's where there absolutely is room for debate.

This argument can apply to literally anything.

It is different though.

There are law journal articles debating whether the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional. And that isn’t a new thing, here’s one from 1990: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...

There’s a big difference between a law for which there have been longstanding serious scholarly objections to its constitutionality, and a law whose constitutionality has never been questioned in any serious forum

Really? Because SCOTUS actually ruled the President very well might be immune from any criminal repercussions from mowing down civilians from a helicopter-mounted machine gun.

Seems like there’s at least “a debate” to be had.

It hasn’t been tested at the Supreme Court level, no.

However, other presidential administrations have worked within the framework of the law and requested that Congress rescind funding instead of running roughshod over the law and unilaterally attempting to defund programs and canceling spending that was authorized by Congress.

We’ll likely get a Supreme Court case testing the CBIA of 1974, we’ll soon find out what these 9 justices think about it.