"Unitary Executive"--can we morph this deceptive phrase into

[Skidmore]

another way of saying "Dictatorship?" Let us speak truth to word parsers. Let us work together to create a new lexicon. I find this idea of a unitary executive the most insulting to the people. Besides trying to stack the Court, this bunch of ideologues has tried to marginalize the people, and whatever success they have achieved has been with the assistance of the media. Let us change the lexicon. Start associating that phrase with a negative word and take the shine off the spin.

[nebenaube]

1. why acknowledge something that doesn't exist?

There's no such thing. That's a figment of AG's imagination, period.

[Skidmore]

2. There are a whole lot of Americans out there who are not

educated to the level to understand that it doesn't. The phrase itself is jargony and sounds official and somewhat cerebrally academic. I'm saying that the sloganeering and wordshopping/branding at which this criminal element has been successful needs to be turned on them.

[Bucky]

3. That's also an over simplification of the theory.

Unitary Executive theory is only that all officers of the Executive Branch answer to the president. Maybe you could call it something like "militarized" or "regimented executive", but there's nothing in UE theory that overrides balance of powers. It just squashes the autonomy of other executive officers who historically haven't answered to the president. We won't cure their distortions with distortions of our own.

[rman]

5. i think the issue is interpretation of the theory;

according to the RW, the vesting clause in art 2 means the president does have powers that are akin to the powers of a dictator (though the RW uses different words to describe it...).

[Hosnon]

9. Right and I think it is quite credible.

Article II vests the entire Executive in the President. However, departments are Legislative/Executive hybrids so, in my opinion, the absoluteness of the President's power would not apply to department heads (or to any officer of an agency not solely within the Executive).

[mmonk]

11. and Congress retains the right to provide the check and balance.

Therefore, the executive branch can't unilaterally order all departments to execute his orders which conflict with their purposes or the constitution or interpretations of Congress.

[Hosnon]

14. I agree. If the individual is not completely within the Executive branch, s/he

should be answerable to Congress. However, I'm not quite as sure about individuals completely within the Executive branch.

[mmonk]

15. They are under "checks and balances".

[Hosnon]

17. I see what you are saying and I think that is the central issue that is going

to be discussed in the very near future.

If the President is immune from Congress' subpoena power, then under the Unitary Executive theory, all (solely) Executive branch employees/members are likewise immune.

[mmonk]

21. Exactly. And this is the challenge this administration

has put forth before us.

[Hosnon]

23. I see no real problem with concluding that the entire Executive branch

is the President for certain purposes, e.g., liability, but not for others, e.g., immunity, lawsuits.

Note: The distinction I have made in the examples seems to be between benefits and costs. This is not necessarily the case and may so appear because of my inability to articulate other examples.

[rman]

4. we could say "it's just a theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Unitary executive theory

In American political and legal discourse, the unitary executive theory is a controversial theory of Constitutional interpretation that addresses aspects of the separation of powers. The theory argues for strict limits to the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch.

...

The theory relies on the Vesting Clause of Article II which states "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Proponents of the unitary executive use this language along with the Take Care Clause (" shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...") to argue that the Constitution creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President."<1>

The theory argues for strict limits to the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch.

Proponents of the theory argue that the President possesses all of the executive power and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of the executive branch. This implies that the power of Congress to remove executive agencies or officers from Presidential control is limited. Thus, under the unitary executive theory, independent agencies and counsels are unconstitutional to the extent that they exercise discretionary executive power, not controlled by the President.<2>

The judicial branch implications are that no part of the executive branch can sue another part because "the executive cannot sue himself." If the federal courts were to adjudicate disputes between executive agencies, it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

The theory has been associated with conservative legal thought and members of the Federalist Society, and originally came to prominence in regard to the independent counsel law (see Morrison v. Olson).

...

[Skidmore]

6. It is a theory that needs to be discredited.

[maine_raptor]

7. "Unitary Executive is the political version of the Flat Earth Theory."

It's dumb and un-American.

That all that really needs to be said.

[doublethink]

8. I tend to agree with you on this Skidmore .....

We have to put it in simple enough terms for the un-interested (Politically unaware) American Public to understand; To understand what's at stake in a Sound Bite. If someone wants to stick to the terminology of 'theory' fine, Dictatorial Executive Theory then. 'Euphemisms' have always been a big pet peeve of mine. A pet peeve of George Carlin's (the comedian) also......... ;)....... Peace.

[doublethink]

10. Here's something Al Gore wrote ..... or stated ....

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." -snip-

scroll down under the George Bush section ..... here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Anyway maybe something like Tyrant Executive Theory .... or 'Tyrantorial Executive Theory' (nice ring to it) might more encompass this theory As The Bush Administration Defines And Uses It. We all know this administration does not and has NEVER played by the rules, so everyone else's definition in this thread of the Unitary Executive Theory (though technically correct, should only refer to the Executive Branch of Government) ..... well in the real world that's just not how the Bushies go about their business: I.E. signing statements, etc.. etc..

Peace.

[bryant69]

12. It helps that "Unitary Executive" really does mean "Dictatorship"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[deutsey]

13. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Franco, Pinochet, et al., were all "unitary executives"

:evilfrown:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. 'Is that like a KING?' 'Does that come with

a CROWN?'

[Peace Patriot]

18. The "Uni-Bush Executive."

Or the "Uni-Bushcon Executive."

That's what it really means. Bush and his puppetmasters can do anything they want. Make war. Kill innocents. Spy on anybody. Torture prisoners. Steal billions. Violate any law, tradition or ethical principle. It is not a theory. It is a personal power-grab. And it is profoundly unconstitutional and unamerican.

[alfredo]

19. Imperial Executive.

[alfredo]

20. Imperial Executive. (so nice I said it twice.)

[Javaman]

22. Urinary executive. nt

[conscious evolution]

25. urinary excrement

[rman]

24. Proponents of unitary executive doctrine have an incentive to create emergencies

Because it is in an emergency that it can be argued there is plausible cause for the need to have one person with absolute power, so that decisions can be made quickly. hat's when "oversight" becomes "outside interference".

That argument has been used by every dictatorship that arose from a democracy.

Would people who prefer dictatorship (as long as they are the dictator, or friends with the dictator) stoop so low as to actually create the emergencies on which they thrive? Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.