To be clear, SCOTUS did not find that the government didn't have the authority. It rather explicitly stated that the C.D.C. does not, but Congress does. Which for good or ill, it declined to exercise.
> There are worse things than getting sick.
Disease control codes are as old as law. We live in a society, and part of keeping society running is keeping it healthy.
the eviction moratorium was implemented because the alternative was a good fraction of the population getting evicted on a very short timescale. the legal and police infrastructure to carry it out simply did not exist, and any attempt would have been overwhelmed with refusal and defensive organizing.
any solution would have been problematic and disruptive to property rights. the CDC exceeding their authority just provided some realpolitik deniability for elected officials, and prevented open revolt.
That said, the US constitution is an interesting beast, because of the Supreme Court's very very progressive interpretation of the commerce clause.
The Supreme Court has a very large amount of discretion in these things.
If the "government" wanted something enough, they could get a supermajority together in congress and amend the constitution to make literally anything legal. But they haven't, in this case, done so.
As long as the Tenth is there, it is part of the constitution which all elected officials have sworn an oath to uphold.
The debt ceiling is a great example. The executive cannot spend what congress hasn't authorized.
What you say about spending is correct. And, yeah, the differences between the legislative and executive branches are important and more than technicalities.
I wouldn't say the executive branch is under "stricter rules" than the legislative branch. It just has different rules and different responsibilities.
The legislative branch creates laws. The executive branch enforces/executes laws. The judicial branch makes sure those laws are constitutional and identifies their limits/scope.
Of course there is some gray area as congress likes to give some of its powers to the executive branch so that they can say "that wasn't my idea" to unpopular ideas.
Rather than make a law that says "forget about all that rent from last year" they would more likely make a law that says "someone in the executive branch has the power to say: forget about all that rent"
The other route would be for the judicial branch to say the executive branch already has that power... But they just said it doesn't.
And that's how the wheel of government turns... In the US
> In the United States, "government" is considered to be divided into three branches; the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) which makes law, the Administration (under the President) which runs sections of government within the law, and the Courts, which adjudicate on matters of the law. This is a much wider meaning of "government" than exists in other countries where the term "government" means the ruling political force of the prime minister and his/her cabinet ministers (what Americans would call the Administration).
I believe usually in countries with a parliamentary system, the government refers specifically to the executive branch, and neither the legislature nor the judiciary.