The trouble with black and white is sometimes you miss the magnitude of difference.

Don't tell Lincoln that.

It changes from decade to decade, cause to cause- in both political parties.

I can't think of any Washington engaged in, but Jefferson for sure impounded Congressionally allocated money- though not for the purpose of trying to dictate policy to the States, and Congress didn't fight him on the matter. i.e., it wasn't contentious.
In fact, many Presidents have done that. It wasn't really a problem until Nixon. Impound Control Act was a result of that, and the Supreme Court authorized it as legal. Today, it looks like Impound Control may be about to collapse to the pre-Nixon state, depending on what SCOTUS says about the Harvard case- assuming Trump's DOJ appeals it.

Ultimately, Congressional authorization isn't required for all things. The President is individually empowered along side them for many things- like impoundment- it was considered a normal Presidential power until the 1970s- 200 years after its first assertion. Took us that long to get a real crook in office. I think that actually you misjudge how broad the job description is. I think modern people would perhaps be terrified of the Constitutional Convention debate notes. They envisioned a very powerful "Chief Magistrate" (President) that would be controlled by the impeachment power. They hadn't experienced the Party-over-Country politics of political parties yet- they literally didn't exist.

The theory behind checks and balances required that control of the 3 branches wouldn't be united by any common cause other than those which an independent thinker would come to. Party politics shot that out of the water 200 years ago. System was broken by the time its second President was inaugurated.

Agreed. The ruling party shouldn't be acting like it's in the fucking opposition. Especially at times when it was fucking critical for it to lead.

Where in the hell have you been?

Trying? Dude has succeeded. The ICA is dead. All he has to utter are the words, "foreign policy", or "national security". But yes- it was the protection from this kind of bullshit happening, before it had been entirely neutered by the Supreme Court.

There is no regulation. Read the order.
There is no organ of the executive that is not obligated to follow an executive order, as long as it does not surpass the executive's constitutional or statutory power.
You're probably referring to the very gray area in "independent" agencies, but it's pretty clear at this point that the theory of independent agencies within the executive is a fiction.

Little outfit called Piepeople Consulting.

Normally the agency that is most appropriate for carrying out regulation of AI commerce, the FTC, would not be under any obligation to follow an executive order. But Andrew Ferguson will almost certainly go along with whatever Trump wants.

The federal government is nearing the point of being a failed state.

I was offered FTE from Cisco and when I refused they terminated my contract. The full-time offer was a paycut with worse healthcare than I got through the contracting agency.

I'm definitely ready to see Democrats fight back.
The era of gentlemanly pool has been gone for a long time, and they didn't get the fucking message.

There have been many times in my life where I've agreed with Republicans more than Democrats on issues that I felt were important (never social issues though, sadly), and the Dems and I stand apart on a good many things today- but this country needs more than 1 party acting. The Republicans have had effectively, at several levels, 1 party government since the early 90s.

It's how we end up with best-effort shit like the ACA, which is just riddled with poison compromises.
It's time for some FDR energy, but hopefully with the wisdom, temperance, and concern for the full aspects of the future of an Eisenhower

Whatever I think of Newsom as a candidate still I hope more and more governors start using his playbook. What he was able to do on Prop 50 was impressive.

The crypto thing in general I think is enough it really should be more out in front, it's so blatant, there is zero justifiable reason that venture should exist.

Yeah you're probably right about Ukraine not resonating and it'll always be tied into that now it's really more the fact that even if you support a negotiated end to the war right now the guy doing it is supposed to be representing us and our interests as America and trying to get a fair deal and this guy absolutely has such obvious conflicts of interests all over the place.

It's like how Trump has so many of his own private attorneys acting in official capacities it's unbelievably corrupt.

Also Dems should really be working stuff like this clip of Noem and the deported combat vet. in front of people whenever possible.

Ya- States absolutely can fight back.

A good example is the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974, which did a similar thing- compelling states to set maximum speed limits, lest the Government start taking away their money.
Several states never complied.

And ya, I think you're basically correct with how it will turn out with regard to who will ignore, and who will capitulate.

Aye. That was the first thing that came to mind for me as well. It's close to the same blueprint.

I think that the action feels dirtier coming from just the Executive, though I can't really imagine any reason why he wouldn't have the power to do it.
It still feels like a dictator wannabe trying to find new lines he can draw in.

I think the complete eradication of the Power of the Purse will be the thing that haunts us the most about this Presidency.
It's carte blanche for an American-style dictatorial executive.

Of course, maybe as the other person who replied to you says, we'll wean ourselves off of it someday. One can dream.