[_hyn3]

If the CEO of your company empowers a team to audit your work, would you 'resist'?

And this Chief Executive was elected by the majority of the country, specifically to take these actions that he'd clearly stated he would take.

The resistance is actually the violation of federal law. It's no different from contempt of court; within the President's domain, he has a huge amount of power. The President can also modify existing policy (regulations) at any time and literally make new laws (Executive Orders have the force of law) as long as they don't conflict with current law, as well as overturning previous President's Executive Orders.

Of course, then the shoe will be on the other food someday, too, just as it was when Biden took over from Trump and then they switched places again.

As President Obama said, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone."

https://www.npr.org/2014/01/20/263766043/wielding-a-pen-and-...

[acdha]

> If the CEO of your company empowers a team to audit your work, would you 'resist'?

If he ordered you to break the law or professional standards, would you obey? This is not hypothetical for many people: if you’re a lawyer, professional engineer, healthcare professional, work in HR, etc. it is not at all uncommon to suggest legal ways to accomplish a goal.

According to the article, that’s exactly what happened here: they have various federal laws and regulations covering their work, but as at other agencies, DOGE decided they don’t need to follow those. This confirms that their stated purpose is not their true motivation but it remains to be seen whether there will be any consequences.

[jjav]

> The resistance is actually the violation of federal law.

Your misunderstanding seems to be to think that the word of the president is the law, like in a dictatorship. In the US system of separation of powers, that's not how it is supposed to work.

[distortionfield]

The president is currently ignoring a Supreme Court order, not explaining why they’re ignoring it, and even if they tried to charge him, last year the Supreme Court ruled that he has immunity from everything anyway. So where exactly is it different from a dictatorship now?

[the_other]

(Non-US here)

As I understood it, this "immunity" is granted for POTUS doing things in the course of their responsibility as POTUS. Could it be argued that breaking laws & orders which bind the activity of POTUS is _inherently not_ the work someone in that role?

[dbdr]

Isn't the point of immunity that it's immunity from prosecution on actions that are / would potentially be illegal? You don't need immunity if what you are doing is legal anyways.

[fc417fc802]

Immunity is generally scoped. Challenging the determination of scope is not the same as challenging the action.

Immunity also isn't absolute. For example police in the US typically enjoy broad immunity but that doesn't imply not getting dragged into court. They just have sweeping legal defenses available to them that other people don't.

[the_other]

Probably, but I’d like to see it tested.

[pizza]

What would you do if your CEO tells you to do something illegal? What would you do if your CEO then tells you to intimidate people who refuse to carry out the illegal requests by tailing them and then taping the surveillance footage to their door as a threat?

[nobody9999]

>And this Chief Executive was elected by the majority of the country,

Except said "chief executive" was not elected by "a majority of the country."

He wasn't even elected by a majority of those who voted (~35-40% of the population), but rather a plurality of those who voted (~20% of the population).

Note that I am not claiming that there was anything nefarious (I have no evidence to support making such a claim), just that those who voted for that person represent only ~20% of the US population, not a "majority of the country."

[jasonjayr]

The CEO of the company is bound by laws and rules that the same country enacted. We the people are the board. The CEO answers to the board.

There are procedures to do the things that he said he wanted to do, because we are well aware of how an unchecked executive can destroy our government by doing what they want however they want.

Allow me to illustrate Exhibit A, unfolding now.

[_DeadFred_]

The only agencies the President gives orders to like this are the military ones. We don't have a dictator that dictates from on high. That is why we have the Administrative Procedures act, the executives 'executiving' needs to be consistent and based on logical reasons.

We used to have a government like this, a spoils system, and it didn't work. So both parties created the civil service. Both parties passed things like that Administrative Procedures act.

[tootie]

President isn't CEO. Laws and budgets are set by Congress. EOs do not have the force of law and many have been invalidated by courts.

[_hyn3]

> President isn't CEO

The President is literally the Chief Executive officer in the United States.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/president4.htm

> Laws and budgets are set by Congress

That's correct, under Article 1, but the President does not have to spend every dime that was allocated.

> EOs do not have the force of law

"Both executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies"

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat...

You seem to underestimate the power that is vested in the office of the President as the Chief Executive.

> have been invalidated by courts

As have many, many legislatively-passed laws; this is simply checks-and-balances and allows the judiciary to act on other laws (which originate from Congress) and regulations (which originate from the Executive Branch).

[_DeadFred_]

Chief Executive officer does not mean dictator other than to military agencies. Please read the history of the bipartisan creation of the civil service, of the Administrative Procedures act, all created bipartisanly to reinforce that the President is not a dictator/king.

[tootie]

The executive has discretion in how funds are disbursed, but they have to fulfill all the obligations laid out by Congress. Impoundment is expressly illegal, not just due to Article 1, but also the Impoundment Act to avoid any ambiguity. The Dept of Education, for example, is created by act of congress and has a list of obligations in the congressional budget and the president has no authority to deny that. They have discretion in terms of how it is fulfilled and who gets paid when, but they are assuredly not allowed to just cancel programs or agencies that explicitly funded by congress.

[jayd16]

If the CEO brought in their friends as temps to screw around? Which they were only allowed to do until the next board meeting when they will very likely not be approved? Yeah, I'd probably resist any royal fuck ups until then.

[iamdbtoo]

> And this Chief Executive was elected by the majority of the country

No, he was not. He was elected by ~30% of the possible voters in this country because most people chose no one and stayed home.