From what I remember, maybe the little bit of US government I was taught, but not the original design, is that Congress makes the laws, and the president executes those laws via the federal agencies. My intention isn't going into the constitutionality of that setup, or of the agencies themselves, but how would something like border enforcement be done? That's actually in the constitutional purview of the federal government - provide for the common defense.
Would that be done with a border patrol funded by (laugh here) and under the direction of the government? Or would that be given to the states with a framework to go by? Would a militia need to be raised for it? There's also the issue of ambassadors. I know they answer to the president, but what kind of organization would they be in? Would it be a much smaller, reconstituted state department?
I'm just wondering how the president is going to execute the laws that Congress makes.
In which case the EPA and ATF will be enforcing only the laws congress makes, instead of making or adding on their own bullshit. I personally doubt the supreme court deciding with West Virginia would call into question the legitimacy of the agencies, but rather force those agencies back into constitutional bounds.
I have it on my todo list to read the full opinion before the end of the day. The only way we know what they are thinking.