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.