Comment by mola 2 days ago
In most rule of law democracies the law is above the president. 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. Granted there will be times of murkiness that require interpretation. But "fuck it I'm the president and everything I say is legal" is not a valid interpretation in any democracy I know of.
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.
Important to note that USA is a republic, typically in Europe parliamentarianism.
Is that meant to support some position, what do you even mean? In republics the executive has all the powers?
US president has a lot of powers, I’m not aware of any elected official in Europe with the same amount of powers (ignore Russia).
President of France is probably the most comparable, but in France you also have the prime minister, selected by the president but supported by the parliament.
In Sweden we have a separation of powers within the executive branch. Government agencies are independent of the cabinet.
DOGE’s audit wouldn’t be possible in Sweden, that would have required legislation or even constitutional changes.
Sweden has already an independent government agency that audits the rest of the government, but it has support in the constitution for that and it is technically administered by the parliament and not the cabinet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_National_Audit_Offic...
My personal opinion is that the US system of government is vastly inferior to Sweden’s.
The so called "audit" is not "possible" in the US either, except nobody intervenes when the laws are broken. Where is the security clearance?
In the USA, both are true. Civil servants can (and should) refuse to follow an order they think is unconstitutional, illegal, or simply unwise. But this won't stop them from being fired for insubordination. I don't think the courts will attempt to force the president to retain subordinates that are actively opposing him on the job.
If they can still be fired, then what does it even mean to say that they can refuse to follow an unconstitutional order? Refusal to follow any order is not illegal. If the consequences for refusing to follow an illegal order are the same as the consequences for refusing to follow a legal order, then there is no sense in saying civil servants can refuse illegal orders.
The consequences for following an illegal order include being sued, being held in contempt of court, or being criminally prosecuted by a subsequent administration. They don't have the same immunity that presidents do because they don't have a direct vesting of authority under Article II.
Generally when you reach that point it ceases to be a democracy.