>> 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.