> Rule by executive order is obviously only a problem when Democrats do it. That is false equivalence. Obama's EOs would wind up going through the court syste

> Rule by executive order is obviously only a problem when Democrats do it. That is false equivalence. Obama's EOs would wind up going through the court system and getting overturned and ruled unconstitutional. The courts would tell him that he had committed executive overreach, and that what he wanted was the provenance of Congress, and that he needed to go do the hard work to get a law passed through that body. Trump has already had EOs rules unconstitutional, and he's announced his intentions of ignoring the courts entirely. That violates our system of checks and balances, and is the comic-villian interpretation of what Obama was doing (he wasn't ever doing that). What we have now is a CEO-President. And Companies don't have a representative Congress or Courts. The top-down hierarchical structure of the typical corporation would be called a dictatorship in the political sphere (particularly if the CEO owns >%50 of the voting shares). That isn't what our system of government is supposed to be. Arguably we shouldn't accept that in corporations, either, but at least we have some kind of freedom of association to quit and find another job. Half the country has forgotten basic High School Civics 101 and "Separate but Equal" along with "Checks and Balances" and think this is entirely normal. But we aren't supposed to have one person who makes up the laws and enforces them, with no checks on their power. That would _accurately_ be described as a Dictator/King/Fascism or some other term in that general universe. The Constitution was written to prevent _exactly_ that. And to reiterate, Obama was regularly checked by the Court system. Trump has indicated that he will ignore the Courts. That really is "crossing the Rubicon". The only thing providing a check on Trump right now seems to be the stock market.