U.S. Government Organizational Chart

In the United States, the government is organized into three branches to ensure a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances:

Legislative Branch: This branch makes the laws. It is composed of Congress, which is divided into two parts: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate has 100 members, two from each state. The House of Representatives has 435 members, with the number of representatives from each state based on its population.
Executive Branch: This branch enforces the laws. It is led by the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is supported by the Vice President and the Cabinet, which consists of heads of federal agencies and departments.
Judicial Branch: This branch interprets the laws. It is made up of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the country. The Supreme Court has nine justices who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Each branch has specific powers and responsibilities that are designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. This structure is outlined in the U.S. Constitution, which serves as the supreme law of the land.

President vs. CEO

In some ways, the President of the United States can be compared to a CEO. For example, both the President and a CEO provide leadership and vision for their organization or country. Both rely on a team of advisors and key personnel to help them make informed decisions and implement policies.

A CEO is accountable to shareholders and the board of directors, while the President is elected by the public and must be responsive to the needs and opinions of the electorate. The President and a CEO can both hire and fire people, but the President has to follow some special procedures. For instance, the appointments of cabinet members require confirmation by the Senate, and the heads of some independent regulatory commissions have protections against being fired without cause.

Jeffrey Tucker, the President of Brownstone Institute, shared an organizational chart outlining the functions of each branch of government. “Here is the federal government org chart,” he wrote on X. “Observe what the president controls vs. what the judiciary controls. These are executive agencies the actions of which only the president is held responsible.”

Click to Enlarge

The Executive vs. The Judiciary

Although a judge cannot “tell the President what to do” in the sense of micromanaging their daily activities, the judiciary can and does play a crucial role in upholding the U.S. Constitution and ensuring that the President’s actions comply with the law. If the President takes an action that is deemed unconstitutional, the courts can rule against it and issue orders to stop or change that action.

Activist judges have been undermining President Donald Trump’s constitutional authority by issuing temporary injunctions against his executive orders, in an effort to stall and block his administration’s efforts to enhance national security and eliminate bureaucratic waste. These radical judges are imposing their personal political biases over the clear mandate given to the President by the electorate.

Vice President J.D. Vance made a perfect analogy in response to this travesty of justice. Drawing on both his military experience and legal background, he noted what would happen if a judge tried to sabotage a general or an attorney general from performing their legal duties. “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vance posted on X. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.”

There is such a thing as judicial review. But the President, elected by the people, should be allowed to fulfill his constitutional duties without the judiciary stepping beyond its bounds. This interference from radical judges undermines the clear separation of powers intended by the framers of the Constitution. Article VI clearly states that laws and rulings from judges must be pursuant to the Constitution; when they aren’t, they are unconstitutional and you are under no obligation to follow such rules and laws.

However, President Trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he breaks a court order, it will cause the left to explode with shouts of “Constitutional Crisis!” “Danger to Democracy!” “Impeachment!” If he files an appeal, it only gives their corruption legitimacy and power. Moreover, the judge can sit on the appeal and waste time, which is what they want, to keep Trump from being able to take action.

The people have voted, and we voted for Trump’s America first agenda. But the courts are making it so Trump can’t do all of the things that he promised during his campaign. Which means these leftist judges are also thwarting the will of the people who voted for him, so THEY are the ones who are really preventing democracy from working.

Judges should not be able to supercede the people’s will. The Constitution is higher than the judges. The Constitution says that the executive has executive power. Not the judicial. Of course, that means the judges must be ethical and act with integrity. When you allow the Judiciary to have this kind of power, crooked judges will take advantage.

The quote by John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” carries profound meaning and holds great importance in understanding the foundation of our republic. It can certainly be applied here.

What if the Supreme Court Goes Rogue?

Suppose the U.S. Supreme Court were to continually side with activist judges and refuse to uphold the Constitutional separation of powers. In that case, it might fuel a nullification movement where states and individuals may decide to ignore the rulings.

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws that they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state’s own constitution).

Nullification has never really been tested, but someday it may become the last resort.