Matt BlazeA reminder that "executive orders" are exactly that - orders from the president for the executive branch. They are not laws, and they do not directly bind anyone not in the executive branch of the US government. They might affect how laws are enforced and other things the executive branch does that affect private individuals, but they are not "orders" that private individuals (or organizations) are required to obey.
Ditto "commander-in-chief". The president is the "commander-in-chief" of the MILITARY and at the top of its chain of command. Those outside of the military are not part of the chain of command.
So… if the president issued an executive order that underwear must from now on be worn on the outside of clothing, that might require federal employees to change how they dress for work. But the rest of us would remain free in our sartorial choices.
(It would also be really weird, and suggest the president was drawing undue inspiration from fictional Latin American dictators, possibly implicating the 25th Amendment)
0ddj0bb@mattblaze as well as potentially all federal contractors. So pretty much all big tech, consulting, finance, hr etc. It would be a nontrivial order that would impact millions
Cassandrich@0ddj0bb @mattblaze The order doesn't apply to them. It might mean contracts don't get renewed, but if the contracted company tries to apply rules that break the law (e.g. discriminatory or unsafe shit) to their employees just to keep their contracts, they're breaking the law and employees need not comply, and have grounds to sue when fired.
viq@dalias @0ddj0bb @mattblaze Except with this line of thinking the last part breaks, because "sue when fired" engages judicial system, which AFAIK is federal employees, who are affected by the executive order, in how they behave, and in how they do their job of applying penalties in certain situations.