Something I've long wondered about this "unitary executive" theory

and those neoconservatives who profess to believe in it. Will it apply when a Democrat is in the White House?

























No, didn't think so. ;)

:shrug:

If they won't step up, who else will? :shrug:

You never know. :beer:

If you can have a unitary executive, why can't you have a unitary legislative or judiciary? Why can't one of those branches accumulate excessive power and ignore the Constitution? If, as our Constitution says, we have three equal branches of government, then why does the executive branch get to be unitary but the other branches have to be multiple?

It was always bullshit. It's just the people who believe in it want to be dictators, and try to rationalize it.

. . .that ain't there.

You hit the nail on the head. Fascist fantasies like unitary authoritarian executive are NOT ideas to be "argued on the merits." Just as intelligent design has no place in our science classes, their fantasies have no place in the "marketplace of ideas."

No more debating "on the merits." The moment we engage and treat their fantasies as plausible theories, we join the ranks of those who refuse to see that the emporer is naked.

. . .is how I always refer to it.

They claim that each branch has its own role, and the interaction between them is limited.

The judicial branch should not legislate from the bench; courts are in charge of saying if a law is constitutional (not actually in the Constition, but widely regarded as proper), and saying how the laws properly apply. Congress makes the laws; the executive branch has first-pass interpretation rights and does law enforcement. The court's reasonings are confidential.

The legislative branch legislates, making laws for the population and executive branch. It neither judges nor controls the executive branch directly--there is no provision for 'independent' agencies in the US government, nor room for much input from Congress (apart from being civil). Oversight, like judicial review, is not in the Constitution; it's also widely regarded as proper. Materials used in producing legislation are confidential.

The executive branch should not legislate or judge (military excluded); the executive branch is in charge of executing the laws. And, "The executive Power shall be vested
in a President of the United States of America." Add the implicit "solely" before "vested" and you get the heart of the 'unitary executive' theory as propounded by the developers and advocate of the theory--the idea that the 'executive' is the president is specious (properly it's 'executive' vs 'legislative'), and that the 'unitary' means 'all branches of government under the chief executive' is make believe.

Complicating matters--and making it confusing for those lacking a modicum of good will--is the issue of rights inherent to the presidency. But these are to the side; unitary executive advocates and opponents are split on the matter, with the division being largely partisan (and, presumably, reversible).

. . .and the judiciary.

Arbitrarily nullifying and violating U.S. Code at will by invoking the fascist fig leaf of executive unitary authoritarian power to "protect the nation" is an abomination in a True American. It is not complex. As noted above, you don't need a law degree, or even a high school diploma, to know that power like that is never freely given; it is only taken by deception or force.

Our commons will trumps all claims that any "issue" is too "complex" for the common people to understand. The notion that legal technicality and cynical misuse of the courts can trump our will or reality (like the fact that more Floridians entered the poll both to vote for Gore) is a notion that empowers fascists.

• the Constitution is a contract among ourselves;
• we yield NONE of our collective sovereignty to ANY institution or office we established;
• we give NO party to the contract the right to usurp or surrender our collective sovereignty.

We empowered Congress, the body through which we assert the sovereign will of We the People, the power to trump the actions of the officials in the executive and the judiciary by removing the officials for those actions.

With the power to impeach, Congress can overrule edicts of the Supreme Court that usurp our will -- as with Bush v. Gore -- by impeaching the justices responsible.

With the power to impeach, Congress can overrule edicts of the executive that usurp our will -- as with abusing signing statements to nullify our will, turning Americans into torturers, surrendering our moral authority to object when Americans are tortured by other parties to armed conflict, and conducting illegal surveillance of Americans.

The Constitution -- amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect as we strive to "form a more perfect union" -- defines who we are. It embodies our hopes for what a True America can be. It is the product of our commitment to the audacious belief that common people can design and perfect a system -- the inviolate dictates, framework, officials, powers, evolving institutions and body of law -- that balances conflicting interests in a way that reflects common values and embodies the principle of consent.

Our Federal design is intended to ensure that the law is created, applied, and executed in a manner that best reflects our collective will as is possible in an imperfect world. The power to impeach -- the power to judge and control -- is key to that noble endeavor.

to a Democratic President depends on the Democratic President. My guess is that the next Democratic President will have a Democratic House and Senate and they will work together in a fairly high degree of harmony to try to overcome the massive problems that Bush is leaving behind.

The notion that the 1973 war powers act empowers the President of the United States to nullify and arbitrarily violate our our laws must be rejected on principle -- American principle v. Fascist principle. It is lunacy to think the Constitution for the United States of America gives (or even might give) the Presidency the power to flagrantly violate the collective will of the people codified in the acts passed by our Congress.

You do not need to an "expert" to weigh in. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

This is not the first time that fascists have appealed to legalistic technicality and "complexity" to thwart the will of the people, and it will not be the last.

The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it, Too many Americans have been deceived into believing that they are helpless in the face of legal authority. Even when we are in complete agreement that the INTENT of our law is being overruled by legalisms and cynical misuse of the courts, we have submitted to authorities who tell us, "the law is the law." The spread of this fascist view of the law has had devastating consequences.

No matter how long and complex, or how "scholarly and sophisticated" in form, when an opinion yields results that violate the intent of our laws and the principles embodied in our Constitution, the opinion is a sham.

Like the story of the Emporer's New Clothes, sometimes the "authorities" and "sophisticated" are taken in far more easily than the naive. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust their own judgment and reject the sham.