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.

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

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.

Then it would by definition not be a hallucination.

lol.
no.

Fucking hilarious.

*distributes the purse

You are correct- the order has no authority outside of the Federal Government.
Within the Federal Government, it has the effect of setting up a goon squad to track down any reason they can find to sue and take money away from States that don't comply.

He has no authority to preempt State law, only Congress does.
But as he has demonstrated with his university funding antics- he doesn't really need the authority.
His newly granted power of the guy who distributes the purpose is authority enough for just about anything he wants to do.

I'm quite familiar with the 10th Amendment.

It is at this point that I point out that you have not read the order.
Do you know how I know you didn't read the order? Because nothing in it contravenes the 10th Amendment.

Any time someone challenges you after you've done nothing but read a headline, the first thing you should do is actually try to learn about the topic you're diving into an argument on.

The order does not take any power from the States. It doesn't even assign any kind of new power to the Executive. Congress won't even need to sign off on this.

What the order does, is orders the Federal Government to vigorously look for problems in any State AI laws, and sue the States wherever problems in those laws are found.
It then further directs agencies to withhold money from the States until they are in compliance with the ordered "AI Policy".
The entire thing is some mob boss shit, but if you question its legality, all you need to do is look at what he's been doing to Universities. It's the same tactic.
If you can't order them to do what you want, take away your money until they make the decision for themselves.

Preemption doesn't even apply.
The order also does nothing of the sort.
It just threatens Federal retribution wherever the Federal Government can can find the means if the State doesn't follow the policy.

It's pretty clever, really. There's no way for a state to fight the order. The order is just a direction to the government to find things to harass the State for.

It's far from a no-op.
You misunderstood the point of the EO.

They're not going to sue the State because the AI law contradicts the policy set forth within the order, they're going to sue the AI law for being unconstitutional, written on ugly paper, or whatever they can find.
Then they're going to start withholding Federal funds from the State.
You can read the actual order, here.