Why bother with all that nonsense when the sitting president could just order all their executive agencies to change the rules or stop enforcing them entirely.

Why bother with all that nonsense when the sitting president could just order all their executive agencies to change the rules or stop enforcing them entirely. The argument for the most recent decision is deferring to the enforcers about the extent of their powers is a bad move to when those powers are being challenged. We’re in a lot of the messes we’re in because a lot of our federal regulations aren’t laws, they are the whims of the president and their regulatory body heads, and are subject to change at any time with the stroke of a single pen. For example, net neutrality was a thing, and then it wasn’t, and now it might be again, all in the span of about a decade and all because different presidents and FCC chairs had different opinions about the extent (and intent) of the powers of the FCC. Or consider marijuana, still a schedule I drug per the DEA, yet by presidential decree, the DEA isn’t supposed to be spending effort enforcing that. Until I guess a new “tough on drugs” president comes into office. Or maybe until it’s politically expedient to enforce that law against some distributor. Maybe some grower in California or Colorado where it’s legal at the state level has done something to draw the ire of the president. Gosh wouldn’t you know it, the DEA decided it has some time to start enforcing those laws after all.