Given the context in which you answered, it is wrong. The president carries out the law, but isn't above the law, doesn't decide what is the law, and his actions are to be verified, if necessary, if conform to the law. His authority is not the law, but executing the law.
>> The federal bureaucracy is not a separate branch of government that gets to have its own checks and balances on the president. They are people that he hires to carry out his duties in his stead.
> The civil servants are beholden to the law as passed by the representatives of the people, the chief executive can only give orders as allowed by the law.
And I restated the first point.
This is the context in which I am responding — and that point is true: they are not a fourth entity that is created by law, but an extension of the president carrying out his duty to enact laws.
To the extent the president gives a lawful order, failure to comply by the bureaucracy isn’t lawful — it’s a coup against the elected government of the US.
> the chief executive can only give orders as allowed by the law
The mistake is here: the law does not permit the president to carry out executive functions, but restrains what he can do from the presumption of anything. He does not need permission in law; the absence of restraint is sufficient.
I understand many people (such as yourself) don’t respect that because you favor an autocratic politically aligned bureaucracy — and hence are outraged that the public will is imposing itself on the rogue bureaucrats.
Oh but there was a supreme court ruling that said that official presidential actions are in fact above the law, and he signed an executive order that says he gets to decide what the law is, which is not illegal because it's an official presidential action.
That's not what the EO the other day said. The EO claimed and confirmed policy-making power, ie. interpreting the law and pouring it into policy, for the executive branch. It is quite common internationally that the elected executive has this power and it is weird that it has to be spelled out in the US.
What is worrisome is the overreach in claiming that power for institutions that are not in the executive's purview with the argument "everything is in the executive's purview". No, it is not, and there are reasons why institutions are spread over the three basic powers of a state, one is called "checks & balances". Ah, well.
Given the context in which you answered, it is wrong. The president carries out the law, but isn't above the law, doesn't decide what is the law, and his actions are to be verified, if necessary, if conform to the law. His authority is not the law, but executing the law.
>> The federal bureaucracy is not a separate branch of government that gets to have its own checks and balances on the president. They are people that he hires to carry out his duties in his stead.
> The civil servants are beholden to the law as passed by the representatives of the people, the chief executive can only give orders as allowed by the law.
And I restated the first point.
This is the context in which I am responding — and that point is true: they are not a fourth entity that is created by law, but an extension of the president carrying out his duty to enact laws.
To the extent the president gives a lawful order, failure to comply by the bureaucracy isn’t lawful — it’s a coup against the elected government of the US.
> the chief executive can only give orders as allowed by the law
The mistake is here: the law does not permit the president to carry out executive functions, but restrains what he can do from the presumption of anything. He does not need permission in law; the absence of restraint is sufficient.
I understand many people (such as yourself) don’t respect that because you favor an autocratic politically aligned bureaucracy — and hence are outraged that the public will is imposing itself on the rogue bureaucrats.
That fascism is disgusting.
Oh but there was a supreme court ruling that said that official presidential actions are in fact above the law, and he signed an executive order that says he gets to decide what the law is, which is not illegal because it's an official presidential action.
...yeah.
That's not what the EO the other day said. The EO claimed and confirmed policy-making power, ie. interpreting the law and pouring it into policy, for the executive branch. It is quite common internationally that the elected executive has this power and it is weird that it has to be spelled out in the US.
What is worrisome is the overreach in claiming that power for institutions that are not in the executive's purview with the argument "everything is in the executive's purview". No, it is not, and there are reasons why institutions are spread over the three basic powers of a state, one is called "checks & balances". Ah, well.