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.

So, if the president orders a public employee to execute a random person on the street, they have no legal basis to refuse?

My understanding is that everyone takes the same oath of office to the constitution, not their boss:

> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution …

Yes, like the 7 DoJ prosecutors who chose to resign last week rather than sign a dismissal of the charges against Eric Adams, because it was an obvious quid pro quo, and the case against Adams is very strong. There's absolutely no legitimate justification for not prosecuting Adams.

The dismissal was eventually signed and filed by Emil Bove, a very recent Trump appointee, whose former job was as one of Trump's criminal defense lawyers.

The stink of corruption is heavy around Trump and Musk.

That is the unproven unitary executive concept.

It's true only insofar as Congress won't impeach and remove from office.