>> 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.

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 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.

I am talking about this EO https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu...

> the Constitution also provides for subordinate officers to assist the President in his executive duties.

> Therefore, in order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials’ accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch.

And of course: > President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.