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.
Generally when you reach that point it ceases to be a democracy.
[flagged]
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.
loading story #43112859
loading story #43116056
This is (merely) an argument to roll back the power of the executive branch. It is what it is.
Important to note that USA is a republic, typically in Europe parliamentarianism.
loading story #43113063
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.
Ok? The question is, in what sense are they allowed to refuse an illegal order, given that the consequences are the same as refusing to follow a legal order?