Donald may have direct control of the entire Executive branch, but guess what, that's pretty much what the Constitution says. Where exactly is the "dictatorship" here?
The Constitution gives Congress a great deal of oversight over how the executive branch is run. The President is supposed to execute the laws that Congress passes, spend the money that Congress appropriates in the way that Congress says it should be spent, etc. The President can't even appoint his own officials without the Senate's approval.
Beyond the Constitution, there is a long tradition of independent agencies running according to certain laws and principles that are laid out to them. The President is not supposed to directly order the people at these agencies what to do. Think the Department of Justice: you don't want the President ordering prosecutions. You want those decisions to be impartial. Trump just crossed a massive red line in dropping the prosecution of Eric Adams, and he did so purely in order to gain political leverage over Adams. Now, the NY mayor has to do what Trump says, or else Trump can order the DOJ to start prosecuting him again.
Trump has now openly declared on social media that he does not have to even follow the law, because he's "saving the country." He's trying to establish an elective dictatorship. Americans vote every 4 years, and whoever wins runs the entire government however they want, regardless of what the courts or Congress say.
> The President is not supposed to directly order the people at these agencies what to do.
The Constitution disagrees with you, since it expressly directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". It's literally not possible to "take care" of this without issuing orders to that effect.
The clause that you cited does not in any way contradict what I said.
"Independent" agencies are supposed to function with a high level of autonomy. The president does not have to give individual orders to underlings at the DOJ in order to ensure that Congress' wishes are faithfully executed.
But "without prejudice" which is how they have the hold over him (because they can refile any time he's not doing their bidding). If it was truly dropped, they'd have no leverage.
> "The order is for all charges against Adams to be dismissed, and the dismissal is without prejudice, the official said, meaning charges could be refiled in the future."
> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
