Its your company's money, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the processes or the requirements of the business your company is working with...of which your business has already agreed to.
Now you are adding to the scenario. If my company had signed a legally binding agreement with the other company (which, in this example, would mean that the President had signed something Congress had passed) with these stipulations, then indeed my company is on the hook.
In this scenario, however, there was no such binding agreement - only ever the then-preference of the CEO.
Executive Agencies are still bound by Legislative Law. That is how checks and balances work.
Absolutely they are. And, had Congress passed DACA either with the President's signature or over his veto, then they would be bound to them (something that DACA, ironically, stands in defiance of, as it is fundamentally a refusal to enforce the law). But refusal to enforce the law does not
become Legislative Law simply because the President said so - the
Congress and the Congress only is the source of that authority.
The President is the source only of Executive Authority, and one President is the equal of another, just as one Congress can overturn what previous Congress's have done.
Go look up information on the APA; it's the primary reason why DAPA isn't being discussed as needing to be overturned as well as DACA...because despite Obama putting an order into his executive agencies to implement it, because they did not adhere to the APA it failed to stand.
Executive Agencies don't get to ignore the law simply because the President says so. They no more can ignore the APA because the Presidents wants them to than they can ignore laws about bribery for instance.
I had to take a masters' class once on the APA - still have the giant tomes on my damn shelves, somewhere. The language you are referring to is designed to minimize the abuses of administrative capture and corruption - to offer a check against a bureaucrat, acting within his derived authority, from abusing it against a civilian (ie: My neighbor played loud music last weekend. I will have his property declared a protected wetland, and his house seized). It does not override one President's ability to rescind the Executive decisions of another, nor does it
require the Executive to break the law by refusing to enforce it, regardless of a Judge's assessment of whether or not the President is not a nice person.
