Does the term "Unitary Executive" appear anywhere in our

[louis-t]

Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Star Spangled Banner, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, or even the Magna Carta? Or does it only appear as a footnote, wild theory, or mini-manifesto in some long forgotten political science textbook?

[kirby]

1. Kinda...

A decent read....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

[dkofos]

2. Note the disclaimer

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details.
Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject

[kirby]

5. So?

Its still informative and probably more detailed than the responses that I assume will show up shortly here.

If you are an expert on the matter, by all means, edit the Wiki page yourself. Constitutional law is a hairy subject
which is probably why the disclaimer is there. Even the Supreme Court justices have had trouble defining this subject,
as pointed out in the Wiki article.

[louis-t]

8. Thanks, read also the Clinton 'signing statement' at the bottom.

Compare that to one of shithead's signing statements. Big difference.
Oh, just as I thought, the "theory" of Unitary Executive does not appear, nor does the exact verbage.

[soothsayer]

3. isn't it just a fancy name for dictator?

[louis-t]

9. Yes it is.

[mcscajun]

4. Some details here...

The unitary executive doctrine arises out of a theory called "departmentalism," or "coordinate construction." According to legal scholars Christopher Yoo, Steven Calabresi, and Anthony Colangelo, the coordinate construction approach "holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution." According to this theory, the president may (and indeed, must) interpret laws, equally as much as the courts.

The Unitary Executive Versus Judicial Supremacy

The coordinate construction theory counters the long-standing notion of "judicial supremacy," articulated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, which held that the Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not the law. Marshall famously wrote there: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

-snip-

Of course, the President has a duty not to undermine his own office, as University of Miami law professor A. Michael Froomkin notes. And, as Kelley points out, the President is bound by his oath of office and the "Take Care clause" to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and to "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed. And those duties require, in turn, that the President interpret what is, and is not constitutional, at least when overseeing the actions of executive agencies.

However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, or (as shown by recent developments in the Padilla case) involves offering a federal court contradictory justifications for a detention.

This is a form of presidential rebellion against Congress and the courts, and possibly a violation of President Bush's oath of office, as well.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

[louis-t]

14. "the president may (and indeed, must) interpret laws"

Hmmm, I remember during the dispute period of 2000 election, stupidface made a comment that "the Executive branch is the law interpreting branch." I called my wingnut relatives and asked if they had heard it. They accused the media of "dubbing in his words" to make him look bad. A man running for president couldn't be that stupid, could he? I looked for years to find this quote. bushspeak has it. Freudian slip?

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Nope. It's a dictator thing.

[HereSince1628]

7. I believe in concept the Declaration of Independence does...

and throwing over the unitary executiveness of King George in favor of self-governance was the whole point of the colonies fighting the Revolution.

[Peace Patriot]

10. The Founders of this nation issued the Declaration of Independence, and constructed

the Constitution, in order to curtail executive power, not to unify or enhance it. They were rebelling against the "unitary executive" theories of a thousand years of kingly monarchs and emperors in Europe. The Bush Cartel lapdogs who are blathering about it now are kin to the toadies, yes-men, eunuchs and and nefarious priests who hung around those monarchs--like flies to garbage--lisping in their ears about God's "holy" kingdom and how they were born to rule over its material manifestation on earth.

There is nothing so destructive of democracy and liberty as the already kingly powers of the president--he who holds the "red button" over all life on earth. To assert yet more kingly powers in that office--including extralegal powers of indefinite detention, torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, pervasive domestic spying, politicalization of our justice system, unjust and illegal war, secret budgets, and ripping up the laws of Congress--is treason.

[Swamp Rat]

11. "Unitary Executive" = Dictator

[Peace Patriot]

12. Great image, Swamp Rat!

"One Nation Under Bush" is also a provocative phrase. Could substitute right in--maybe with an ikon of Moses and the Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush as the motif.

[EC]

13. No, but

three EQUAL Branchs of Government does....