> it is hard to imagine this EO standing

There are many things that I thought would not survive the scrutiny of good people within the system of checks and balances.

But here were are. It seems that "good people within the system of checks and balances" were the only obstacle to absolute power.

> It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.

The United States had a spoils system of government administration until at least the late 1800s. The spoils system was still prevalent in many state and city governments until the mid 1900s.

This didn't mean officials were permitted to violate the law, but self-dealing and bald partisanship in administration was rampant, and of course violations of the law often went unpunished as administration officials had (and have) discretion to prosecute.

This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.

How do you come to that to conclusion, especially in the context of the EO?

This EO doesn't change the Constitution's requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

I'm not a lawyer but I would interpret this EO to say "it is the job of the President to execute the laws passed by Congress" and "the President may employ subordinates in that execution", however "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own".

The EO has a long section on "independent agencies which operate without Presidential supervision". This is what the EO clarifies.

> This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.

This isn't true at all. This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.

> This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.

Isn't this exactly how it works? They interpret it and that stands unless challenged in court.

> It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.

Yes. It does.

But there is an older Big Man tradition where loyalty to the nation is indistinguishable from loyalty to the person, the Big Man).

I naively thought that that was a stage that democracies passed through (we see it a lot in the South Pacific - the Big Man.

So sad. So terribly sad. We all like to tease Americans for being this and that, but now it feels like punching down.

Good luck to you all - Dog bless.

It’s pretty amazing. A few days ago someone posted a comparison of the oath of allegiance for officers before and after Hitler, and it has basically exactly the same change.

One can hope…

If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?

[flagged]