Lots of people complain about the Republicans' belief, under Bush, in the concept of the Unitary Executive. But what they don't understand is the fact that every President believes in the same concept.
Including President Obama.
The concept is simple: all executive authority belongs to the President. So if the Commerce Secretary has a power, that power comes from the President. This concept is based on the very first words of the Second Article of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Obama announced this week that the census director would report to him, not the Commerce Secretary. Republicans cried foul, and said it was a "power grab." But according to the Constitution, since this power is executive power under the Commerce Secretary, Obama already had that power; so he is grabbing nothing.
That said, the census is a power listed under the First Article, and it is the obligation of the President to ensure the data is accurate, and the right of the Congress to have full oversight of the process. The President's power is not unlimited, of course, and the Unitary Executive concept does not imply that it is.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 08, 2009 11:12 AM | Email Thishttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88218
Posted by: Scribe on February 8, 2009 11:44 AMhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88218
Posted by: Scribe on February 8, 2009 11:46 AMThe Democrats tried many ways of justifying impeachment of Bush. But really, they should have just said, "we think he is a bad President that is hurting our nation with his bad policies and inept administration."
If they'd done that, they might have actually gotten public support for his removal, rather than trying to claim he lied about Iraq or igmnored treaties we were never a party to, etc.
Since we have a complete idiot as president now, I guess we're gonna find out.
Posted by: Hinton on February 8, 2009 12:00 PMNo other executive is elected in this country, unlike in this state for example.
Instead the conflict and arguments surrounded the boundaries of the power of the executive branch to assert behavior beyond or contrary the laws passed by Congress, and/or seemingly beyond the boundaries defined in the Constitution. This is the "I think the law doesn't apply to me..." etc. assertions.
If the republicans saw this latest item as a "power grab" then perhaps they're no better than the democrats at understanding the roles and responsibilities of the different branches of government.
Posted by: BA on February 8, 2009 12:45 PM"The Democrats tried many ways of justifying impeachment of Bush. But really, they should have just said, "we think he is a bad President that is hurting our nation with his bad policies and inept administration."
If they'd done that, they might have actually gotten public support for his removal, rather than trying to claim he lied about Iraq or igmnored treaties we were never a party to, etc."
Usually impeachment - according to the constitution is a last resort for "high crimes and misdemeanors" by a President. A President that lies about getting the country into a war and causes the death of over 4,000 soldiers and over 75K wounded or disabled surely qualifies.
It is inherent within the system of impeachment that there needs to be more than just "I don't like the guy". That is why a 2/3 vote is needed in the Senate to convict.
I don't think the argument surrounded whether or not the President holds power as a "unitary executive" was really the issue during the Bush presidency
Of course not. That's my point. The Democrats just pretended it was. They re-defined "Unitary Executive" to include the breadth of the power of the Executive Branch, rather than the powers of the President within the Executive Branch, and then demonized anyone who said they believed in the Unitary Executive. You can see this all over Alito's Senate confirmation hearings, for example.
If the republicans saw this latest item as a "power grab" then perhaps they're no better than the democrats at understanding the roles and responsibilities of the different branches of government
Or they are no better at PRETENDING they don't understand. Yes. I criticized their view directly in my post.
Usually impeachment - according to the constitution is a last resort for "high crimes and misdemeanors" by a President.
You are making things up. The Constitution says nothing about being a "last resort." And "high crimes and misdemeanors" are left entirely for the Congress to define.
A President that lies about getting the country into a war and causes the death of over 4,000 soldiers and over 75K wounded or disabled surely qualifies.
You are, of course, lying about Bush lying. That was my point there. There's no evidence Bush lied.
It is inherent within the system of impeachment that there needs to be more than just "I don't like the guy".
Yes. And I never stated nor implied impeachment should be used for mere dislike.
And I deleted your off-topic comment about Steele.
In a situation such as; "The Democrats tried many ways of justifying impeachment of Bush. But really, they should have just said, "we think he is a bad President that is hurting our nation with his bad policies and inept administration."
In the parliamentary system, for instance a vote of no-confidence could have been had and if enough no-confidence votes were received Bush could have been removed and replaced from someone from the opposing party. This provides a better check and balance than we currently have and is a quicker, more efficient and less costly way than to go through how we do it here, as witnessed with the agonizing process with Pres. Clinton. In addition - in Canada, a parliamentary form of Government, I believe that only 6 weeks is allowed to campaign for President, which would be way less costly and another vast improvement over here.
However Canada's health care system is clearly inferior to our's and no, I choose to stay put in this country.
Posted by: KS on February 8, 2009 03:56 PMBut he still reports to the American People, hence, all of his people report to us.
Therefore, We, Can, Comment, on any microdecision made by our "underling", the President...
Did you miss what I wrote? "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That's the Constitution. Everyone under the Executive Branch, including the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau, is exercising the authority of the President, and is directly answerable to the President. He took nothing that was not already his by virtue of what the Constitution says.
And no, you're wrong about Obama's eligibility, too: it is simply false to say it is "manifest" that he is ineligible without proof of his ineligibility, and so far none has been supplied. You could argue the burden of proof is on Obama, but the Constitution doesn't say that, explicitly or otherwise.
Got it here: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/resolutions-of-independence-in-10-stateswhat-is-this/
Washington is one: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009
Bill: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Joint%20Memorials/4009-State%20sovereignty.pdf
It's a nice symbol, and it might eventually lead to meaningful change, and I would vote for it myself ... but I won't get too excited about it, as by itself it won't result in any change.
Doesn't anyone do research before writing opinion pieces anymore?
If your going to argue for unitary executive, then argue the merritts- instead of muddling the question in this bizzare fashion.
Is the president an elected monarch, if only in times of war. What are the benefits?
Not so hard people.
Posted by: Ross on February 8, 2009 08:24 PMNo he doesn't.
Yes, he does. Pretty much everyone believes in the Unitary Executive. All it means is that you believe all the executive power belongs to the President, which is precisely what the Constitution says. There's not much wiggle room here.
He has repeatedly stated that he believes in a different interp.
Right. He was pandering to people who have never read the beginning of Article II, or who don't know what the Unitary Executive means.
If your going to argue for unitary executive, then argue the merritts ... Is the president an elected monarch, if only in times of war.
Exactly: like many people, you do not know what the Unitary Executive means.
Doesn't anyone do research before writing opinion pieces anymore?
Doesn't anyone read opinion pieces before commenting on them anymore?
Take off your tin-foil and try to argue real facts not made up ones.
Pudge: Good post. I don't agree fully with your comment in 4. You use a generalization instead of a specific. The specific tense would be "some" Democrats, not the assumed "all" by your statement. Yes, UFO seeing Kuchinich was the leader of the impeach movement, but not all Democrats joined this bandwagon. I don't remember from the primaries where Biden, Clinton, Obama, or Edwards joined Kuchinich in this call. Gravel may have and Richardson may have leaned this way. You definitely had the left-blogosphere ranting this, but this doesn't make it all Democrats as your statement implied. It like say all Republicans agree with everything that comes out of Rush's big mouth.
Posted by: tc on February 9, 2009 07:48 AMthe court did rule in favor of John McCain being born in Panama, which defeats your argument that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply.
Incorrect. What happened is that Congress passed a law that stated that being born to two U.S.-citizen parents in the Canal Zone abroad is being a Natural-Born Citizen. The 14th Amendment did not come into play.
Yes, UFO seeing Kuchinich was the leader of the impeach movement, but not all Democrats joined this bandwagon.
Many did, including some in WA, and I don't assume my fellow commenters are stupid and don't understand that it was, of course, not all the Democrats.
First off, I strongly oppose the Unitary Exective Theory in all cases - Bush or 'Bama. It removes an important check on the Executive (AKA, The "Sic-the-IRS/ATF/FBI/etc-on-your-ass Branch")
Pudge: Take off the horse-blinders, and set-down the koolaid. Obviously, you have not followed John Yoo, Bush's Justice Dept lawyer?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500570.html
"We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch"
Trust me, I understand John Yoo's quote above, But when does this current "wartime" end?
Does the Unitary Executive Theory end only when/if the Unitary Executive says so? *Hearing all founding fathers tumble in their graves*
To GOP supporters and conservatives: Do you support the Unitary Executive Theory in the hands of Bush, but not Obama? How about NEITHER under the Romans 3:23 Executive Theory?
Posted by: mercifurious on February 9, 2009 12:50 PMYes, what about them? You appear to think there's something wrong with them, but I doubt you can express what. Signing statements have no force of law, you know. They just express the President's opinion about legislation.
Actually, Bush's use of signing statements proved he was MORE open than past administrations. EVERY President interprets laws passed by Congress in accordance with what he thinks it means, and in light of what he thinks the Constitution means. Most of those Presidents, however, don't tell you how they interpret the law, and simply act. Bush, agree or not, tells us how he is going to interpret the law up front. *This is a good thing.*
Some people may have said anything, so I'm not going to spend my time refuting every progressive who talked about the unitary executive no more than you're anxious to defend the idiots who think Obama is a Muslim.
However, the phrase "unitary executive" represents a lot of what people found disconcerting about the Bush administration. Why? Simple. Bush used the phrase frequently in his signing statements.
And there certainly is debate whether the executive can "interpret" -- or completely ignore -- laws. It seems to me that interpreting law falls to the courts, and deciding what laws mean while enforcing them is very close to making your own laws. That power the executive does not. This is what the outcry regarding Alito was about -- and it sounds more about executive power than the fact that the executive runs his branch. Alito wrote: "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress. ... [B]y forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."
I do not agree with the theory that the President's "understanding" the law is just as important as the intentions of Congress. I feel this debate has little to do with "unitary executive." I do not come to this position because it feels good to me but because that is what the constitution says, in my opinion.
And I understand that this is a debate you don't want to have. Instead you want to lecture people on a simple phrase that some, indeed, do not understand. However, nearly all understand the power grab, they saw the Bush administration overstep its bounds (constitutionally or traditionally?) and disappoint the country. But thanks for the lesson in frivolity.
Furthermore, there is a notable hole in the Unitary Executive in practice that you didn't address. Since the Nixon administration that has been an expectation from the Senate that the Attorney General function in many ways independently from the White House. See the outcry regarding Alberto Gonzales (yes, obviously he did resign). I feel that this logic extends from the want of the executive to enforce laws based on what passes and not what the executive feels is politically pertinent (i.e. his own interpretation).
Posted by: John Jensen on February 9, 2009 01:03 PMFirst off, I strongly oppose the Unitary Exective Theory in all cases
Then you oppose the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution, as I noted in the post.
Like Ross, you did not read my post, and instead attacked something you think of as the Unitary Executive, that IS NOT the Unitary Executive.
It removes an important check on the Executive
Fine. Amend the Constitution to strip the President of some of the powers of the Executive Branch then. Until you do, the Constitution is clear: all executive power belongs to the President. Period.
Obviously, you have not followed John Yoo, Bush's Justice Dept lawyer?
Yes, I have. And your quote from him has nothing to do with the Unitary Executive. Unitary means One. Unitary Executive means that there is ONE Executive who has all the power of the Executive Branch. What Yoo argues for, and what I have disagreed with Yoo about for years, is that the Executive Branch gets more power at time of war. That is a completely separate issue.
Trust me, I understand John Yoo's quote above
I believe you do. I do not, however, believe you know what Unitary Executive is.
To GOP supporters and conservatives: Do you support the Unitary Executive Theory in the hands of Bush, but not Obama?
It's the plain language of the Constitution and I support it for all Presidents.
Somebody find every and all posts & opines from Shark, Earling, Pudge (et al) re: Elian Gonzales, Ruby Ridge, and WACO.
Why? What has that got to do with anything?
If you think you can show me to be changing my views on anything, let me save you some time: I've noted on multiple occasions, including during the last year or so of his presidency, that during Clinton's terms I was unfair to him in various ways. You will be extremely hard pressed to find inconsistencies in my words for or against either party, or its candidates/representatives, in the last 10 years.
Break the clocks. Every once in a while, I say this to KS: A-fuggin-men to that. Parlimantary Uber Alles!
Note about Canada-care: Quebec has been attempting to privatize HC under sovereignty laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_General)
I seem to remember Alberta attempting the same at some point - Alberta being the capitol for Canadian Neo-Conservatives
Posted by: mercifurious on February 9, 2009 01:10 PMUh, that is exactly the debate that you're ignoring. Again, Alito's "controversial statement" was: "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress. ... [B]y forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."
And it is not a strong leap to say that enforcement of the law establishes something similar to the "force of law" just as case law from the courts do, in effect. ("Strong leap" as in case law. Unequal enforcement of laws is unconstitutional, for example. Many judges believe this with or without the 14th.)
Actually, Bush's use of signing statements proved he was MORE open than past administrations. EVERY President interprets laws passed by Congress in accordance with what he thinks it means, and in light of what he thinks the Constitution means. Most of those Presidents, however, don't tell you how they interpret the law, and simply act. Bush, agree or not, tells us how he is going to interpret the law up front. *This is a good thing.*
That's an interesting opinion. Perhaps the only way that Bush was more open than past administrations.
I disagree with your theory, of course. Another interpretation is that explicitly doing this is an attempt to establish it as a power de jour.
Posted by: John Jensen on February 9, 2009 01:15 PMI think mercifurious is wrong about unitary executive, for what it's worth. But it sounds like he's just misusing the term to mean "executive power."
Which I UNDERSTAND is the point of your post. But it's a stupid, snarky, irrelevant post when the bigger constitutional issues are ignored. Thankfully you are willing to wade into the more meaningful issues.
Posted by: John Jensen on February 9, 2009 01:21 PM*Warrantless wiretapping - ie, needing Judicial branch stamp (uncheck)
*Ignoring Geneva Convention treaties (the LAW OF THE LAND) (uncheck)
*The Orwellian Redefining prisoners of war laws to make people invisible (uncheck except Hamdon vs. Rumsfeld).
*Jenson's concerns regarding signing statements (uncheck).
In other words, in all these cases, Bush gave meat to King Nixon's Unitary Executive wet-dream:
"When the president does it that means that it is not illegal"
Pudge: What happens when the CinC makes YOU invisible? What happens when the CinC sics the IRS/FBI/ATF on your ass? What happens when the CinC wiretaps your phones/computer?
You will beg for any check against him/her.
And I noticed you didn't respond to this one:
In cases of (declared) War, Does the Unitary Executive Theory end only when/if the Unitary Executive says so?
*Hearing all founding fathers tumble in their graves*
Exactly. Clear case of Presidential trangression if powers here. Alito pretending (w/ no constitutional basis) that the President is somehow a "member of congress".
Parliament or President: pick one Alito.
Posted by: mercifurious on February 9, 2009 01:41 PMUnitary executive is widely believed, that is the truth.
Yes, it is widely believed, as it is unassailably aserted in the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution.
However, the phrase "unitary executive" represents a lot of what people found disconcerting about the Bush administration. Why?
Obviously, because people don't know what the phrase means.
And there certainly is debate whether the executive can "interpret" -- or completely ignore -- laws.
Well, as to the latter, that has nothing to do with the Unitary Executive. As to the former, there is debate, but it is idiotic, as I will demonstrate.
It seems to me that interpreting law falls to the courts
Nope. Ultimately, yes, the Court gets to decide, but most laws never get to the Court. The President has three choices: take every law he has a disagreement with the Congress on to court before acting on it (impractical); do whatever Congress says, ignoring your own view of the Constitution; or, follow your oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution to the best of his ability, which necessarily implies following his own view of the Constitution unless the Court says otherwise.
The only logical answer is to the latter. Obviously the Court cannot always intervene. And it is illogical to say the President should just do what the Congress says, because that destroys the fundamental principle of separation of powers: it not only gives the Congress the power to pretty much control the entire Executive Branch, but it takes away from the function of the Court as well.
... and deciding what laws mean while enforcing them is very close to making your own laws.
Call it what you like, but it is how the system is designed.
This is what the outcry regarding Alito was about
Yes, it was a completely nonsensical outcry based on a lack of understanding of how the government works and what the Constitution literally says.
and it sounds more about executive power than the fact that the executive runs his branch.
No, it's not.
Alito wrote: "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress. ... [B]y forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."
Oh please. He wrote that in 1986 when he was given the TASK of writing a memo to defend the use of signing statements in court as evidence of the proper interpretation of legislation. Alito said in his Senate hearing,
And in that memo, I said, This is an unexplored area, and here are the theoretical questions that -- and, of course, they are of more than theoretical importance -- that arise in this area. That memo is labeled a rough first effort at stating the position of the administration. I was writing there on behalf of a working group that was looking into the question of implementing a decision that had already been made by the attorney general to issue signing statements for the purpose of weighing in on the meaning of statutes. And in this memo, as I said, it was a rough first effort, and the biggest part of it, to my mind, was the statement: There are difficult theoretical interpretive questions here, and here they are. And had I followed up on it -- and I don't believe I had the opportunity to pursue this issue further during my time in the Justice Department -- it would have been necessary to explore all those questions.
In other words, that memo was the a rough first draft from a working group and did not reflect his actual opinions, and he spent more time pointing out problems with the statement you quoted, than defending it. The outcry against Alito over this was utter nonsense.
I do not agree with the theory that the President's "understanding" the law is just as important as the intentions of Congress.
Neither do I, and neither does Alito. However, it still remains true that the President has to follow his own interpretation, until a Court weighs in. The President should, of course, defer as much as possible to Congress, but when there's conflicting statutes, especially when the Constitution comes into play, the President must make up his own mind.
And I understand that this is a debate you don't want to have.
I understand you're lying about me. I can understand how people can have mistaken impressions, but for you to take an opinion of my state of mind, and present it as fact (even though you cannot be seriously confident in it being true, as you have no way to know), is to be intentionally deceptive. Made worse by the fact that it is incorrect.
However, nearly all understand the power grab, they saw the Bush administration overstep its bounds (constitutionally or traditionally?) and disappoint the country.
No, they do not. You are a prime example: you cannot give examples of such a "power grab."
Since the Nixon administration that has been an expectation from the Senate that the Attorney General function in many ways independently from the White House.
Yes, an explicitly unconstitutional expectation, as per the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution.
Uh, that is exactly the debate that you're ignoring.
Um. I am talking about the Unitary Executive, and you even said yourself this is not about the Unitary Executive. And then you say I am ignoring a debate you agree is not a part of the discussion I started? Come on.
I disagree with your theory, of course. Another interpretation is that explicitly doing this is an attempt to establish [that the executive has the authority to change the meaning of the law by its interpretation] as a power de jour.
Except that there's no actual evidence to back up this interpretation, whereas all of the evidence points precisely to my view. Do you really think Clinton and Reagan and Carter and the rest didn't follow their own interpretation of the Constitution when enforcing law? They did that ALL THE TIME. That they didn't put it in a signing statement just means they were less open about it.
You appear to be trying to link Alito's 1986 memo, that has nothing to do with Bush, that was hand-waving at a policy Alito didn't agree with and that has never become legal policy or precedent, to Bush's signing statements. It's tinfoil-hatted lunacy.
Which I UNDERSTAND is the point of your post. But it's a stupid, snarky, irrelevant post
False on all counts.
... when the bigger constitutional issues are ignored.
No, they were not ignored at all. Simply not addressing something doesn't mean it is being ignored. By that standard, I am ignoring almost everything meaningful in the world at all times. That's nonsense.
I concede this issue is not as important as others, but like Congress does not get to decide the interpretation of the Constitution, you don't get to decide what I find to be important or interesting.
Thankfully you are willing to wade into the more meaningful issues.
I always am, despite your silly assertion to the contrary.
I think our "Unitary Executive" definitions are clashing.
Yes, as I said. I am using the actual definition used in legal circles, the one I plainly described in my original post. You are using a false definition made up by people who don't understand it, or who want to manipulate the masses into opposing something they don't understand.
gave meat to King Nixon's Unitary Executive
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You will beg for any check against him/her.
Not unconstitutional ones, no, I will not.
And I noticed you didn't respond to this one: In cases of (declared) War, Does the Unitary Executive Theory end only when/if the Unitary Executive says so?
Yes, I did not respond to it, because it demonstrates the same fundamental misunderstanding of Unitary Executive and has nothing to do with anything I am actually talking about.
But if you insist: the Unitary Executive does not begin or end. It is in the Constitution, the very first sentence of Article II. We always have a Unitary Executive, regardless of whether we are at war. Period.
Also, for what it's worth, war being "declared" generally has no legal significance. You don't need to say "(declared) War," because our laws generally do not distinguish between declared and undeclared, and never have. And neither does the Constitution. The Constitution DOES say that IF you are going to declare war, it has to come from Congress, but the Constitution grants no significance to whether war is declared. War declarations are generally not legal matters, but political matters. The reason why it's in the Constitution at all is because it is a political matter of great significance, but it still remains a political matter.
Clear case of Presidential trangression if powers here. Alito pretending (w/ no constitutional basis) that the President is somehow a "member of congress".
Sigh. Just like you did not read my post before you started attacking me, you didn't bother to read Alito's memo before attacking him. As noted above, those words were from a memo from a working group in 1986 and did not reflect his views, and he actually spent more time demonstrating problems with that theory than defending it.
You just say that, and it's true? No, of course not.
The debate about whether a president's "version" of the law is just as important as Congress' is about executive power by definition. The debate is whether is has the power to do that, not whether the executive is one person. Even an executive branch consisting of three million equal leaders would have its power defined by the constitution.
Oh please. He wrote that in 1986 when he was given the TASK of writing a memo to defend the use of signing statements in court as evidence of the proper interpretation of legislation.
I have no qualms with Alito doing his job. I was using that particular quote to frame the truly relevant constitutional question, and move away from a silly debate about semantics. Forgive me for not giving full context.
I understand you're lying about me.
"Lying." How very pudge of you.
No, they do not. You are a prime example: you cannot give examples of such a "power grab."
Pudge, I did not give examples.
Yes, an explicitly unconstitutional expectation, as per the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution.
An interesting and consistent opinion. "Advice and consent," of course. The attorney general isn't explicitly provided for in the constitution ("public Ministers and Consuls ... and all other Officers of the United States"), but I think we have seen with time that a relatively independent attorney general has its benefits. The constitution does grant the senate the authority to not consent to an appointment -- this consent can be granted or not arbitrarily, and views on executive independence would fall within that domain. The President does have the unquestioned authority to fire the attorney general.
Um. I am talking about the Unitary Executive, and you even said yourself this is not about the Unitary Executive. And then you say I am ignoring a debate you agree is not a part of the discussion I started? Come on.
Okay, fair. But it's also fair to say that you took a literal definition and ignored and didn't address the context surrounding its use by progressives and the media.
Your post begins with, "Lots of people complain about the Republicans' belief, under Bush, in the concept of the Unitary Executive." I assert that this is false. That it should read "the concept of [broad] Executive Power."
And the unitary executive has its limits. We do not want our President to interfere with NASA or the FDA when it comes to science, even if he has the right to. We do not want him to spy on Americans when the laws say he cannot.
John Yoo's opinions are not all based on war powers, pudge. It's the confluence of war powers and executive unitary that are the foundation of his beliefs.
No, they were not ignored at all. Simply not addressing something doesn't mean it is being ignored. I concede this issue is not as important as others [...]
Fair.
I always am, despite your silly assertion to the contrary.
In fact, I "asserted" that you were willing to. Not much for compliments, are you?
I do think it's kind of lazy to not address the serious concerns with the Bush administration in your original post because some progressives co-opted the phrase to reflect their disappointment. I think it's intellectually dishonest to try to separate the context of that phrase's usage from its constitutional meaning. And I think it's patronizing to cast many who disagree with you as uninformed nuts who don't understand what you understand.
But, I'll admit that your post was more about Obama/conservatives than Bush/progressives, so perhaps I'm being unfair. But you do have a nasty habit of casting those on the other side of the spectrum as completely ignorant of the constitution, case law, or whatever you see fit rather than just -- you know -- disagreeing with you.
Posted by: John Jensen on February 9, 2009 02:49 PMYOU said that.
The debate about whether a president's "version" of the law is just as important as Congress' ...
... is NOT A DEBATE. No one here holds that view, Alito does not hold that view, Bush does not hold that view. Of course Congress' view of the bill is more important, but nevertheless, the President has to do what he thinks is best in light of other laws, court precedents, and the Constitution.
An interesting and consistent opinion.
You forgot "unassailable."
"Advice and consent," of course.
That is a legislative power, not an executive power. I am talking about executive power.
The attorney general isn't explicitly provided for in the constitution
Irrelevant. It is an executive position, exercising executive power, which is, according to the Constitution, the President's power.
I think we have seen with time that a relatively independent attorney general has its benefits.
Of course, we are talking about what the Constitution says, not what you think would be good. We could argue whether we would like the A.G. to be independent, but it doesn't mean anything.
Remember the Saturday Night Massacre? Nixon had every right to fire Cox, and to order the A.G. to do it. And the Attorney General and his Deputy would have done it, except for one thing: they promised Congress they would not interfere with the investigation.
Some would say they had only three choices: disobey the President, break their promise to Congress, or resign. But the former is not an option, because the President gets to make the decision to fire Cox, and the order was perfectly legal. So they didn't want to break their word, and they therefore resigned.
This is the Unitary Executive in action. The A.G. cannot refuse to carry out that order. The A.G. only has the power the President allows him to have, and can override each and every decision the A.G. makes, and can order the A.G. to do any lawful act in the job (and can decide, barring explicit law or court precedent, what is lawful).
The constitution does grant the senate the authority to not consent to an appointment
Right. That is legislative power. And I am talking about executive power.
this consent can be granted or not arbitrarily, and views on executive independence would fall within that domain.
Sure. The Senate can choose to not grant consent if an appointee refuses to hold an unconstitutional view. I wish they wouldn't, but it is their prerogative.
But it's also fair to say that you took a literal definition and ignored and didn't address the context surrounding its use by progressives and the media.
It was assumed. I didn't address it because I was implicitly saying it was wrong. I did this by explicitly defining the phrase in a way different than some might assume.
And the unitary executive has its limits.
Not according to the Constitution, no, it does not.
We do not want our President to interfere with NASA or the FDA when it comes to science, even if he has the right to.
Well, "the right to" is the point. Of course he should exercise discretion and let the people under him do their jobs the best way they can. (That said, what you consider "interfering with science" -- maybe not, but certainly what the leftist media does -- I likely wouldn't. The fact is that science can only inform political decisions, it cannot make those decisions for us, and political decisions are based on much more than science.)
We do not want him to spy on Americans when the laws say he cannot.
Again, irrelevant to the Unitary Executive.
John Yoo's opinions are not all based on war powers, pudge. It's the confluence of war powers and executive unitary that are the foundation of his beliefs.
The Unitary Executive -- which Yoo does agree with -- has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the President having increased powers. It only has to do with the President having all the powers of the Executive Branch. The two concepts are essentially unrelated.
In fact, I "asserted" that you were willing to. Not much for compliments, are you?
It was a backhanded compliment, in the context of saying at first I was "ignoring" those issues, and implying that NOW, FINALLY I am somehow willing to do so.
I do think it's kind of lazy to not address the serious concerns with the Bush administration in your original post
And I think that's kind of arrogant. I was talking about what I wanted to talk about. By definition, that is enough.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to try to separate the context of that phrase's usage from its constitutional meaning.
If I had not explicitly given the definition I was using, you MIGHT have a point. But it is impossible for it to be dishonest to use a potentially confusing phrase when you've clearly defined it at the same time.
And I think it's patronizing to cast many who disagree with you as uninformed nuts who don't understand what you understand.
Again: they didn't actually read what I wrote. I am not castigating them for not understanding what the phrase means, I am doing it because they didn't read what I wrote, and then proceeded to attack me for something I didn't write.
But you do have a nasty habit of casting those on the other side of the spectrum as completely ignorant of the constitution, case law, or whatever you see fit rather than just -- you know -- disagreeing with you.
Only when two conditions are met: they actually ARE ignorant, and they are being nasty. Ross and mercifurious both started off nasty, and at the same time were expressing obvious ignorance. I have no qualms about pointing out their ignorance in such a case. Shrug.
Ever hear of Socrates? I don't want to spell everything out, I want people to ask questions. It's when they don't bother reading and attack straw men that I get annoyed: when they don't THINK. It's not the answers I care about as much as the willingness to consider.
Again (and ad nauseum): No one except pudge is talking about a/the President's power(s) as enumerated under Article II. In this case, Pudge is trying to link two seperate concepts, and then play clusterfuck with the strawmen:
"Lots of people complain about the Republicans' belief, under Bush, in the concept of the Unitary Executive. But what they don't understand is the fact that every President believes in the same concept"
That really says it all. No one here is arguing with Article II (yadda-blah-yadda-blah-blah).
What Jenson & I are talking about is unchecked executive overreach:
*Warrantless wiretapping - ie, needing Judicial branch stamp (uncheck)
*Ignoring Geneva Convention treaties - ie, Law doesn't apply to executive (uncheck)
*The Orwellian Redefining prisoners of war laws to make people invisible - ie, law doesn't apply to executive (uncheck except Hamdon vs. Rumsfeld).
*Signing statements - ie, "You pass the law, I ignore the law" (uncheck)
Again Pudge: This is Bush (and other CinCs!) putting the muscle into King Nixon's autocratic wet-dream:
"When the president does it that means that it is not illegal"
Now go ahead & load-up your euphemisms. Parse. Split hairs. Do what you do best/worst.
Posted by: mercifurious on February 9, 2009 04:02 PMWait. I think I can make sense of this now.
This is all part of Pudge's Wink-Wink, Nod-Nod, hidden context thesis:
Bush did it ---->
Obama did it ----->
Clinton did it ----->
Caveat: At that time Clinton did it, I went crazy,
BUT I have now said sorry,
So I have been forgiven for my
horrific sins against the exhaulted and holy CinC
SO now I agree with Clinton ---->
So now I agree with Obama ---->
So now all my past arguments are clear and coherent, and history can record that Bush did a heckuva job!
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeew!
Posted by: mercifurious on February 9, 2009 04:13 PMYou mean my proper word usage?
No one except pudge is talking about a/the President's power(s) as enumerated under Article II.
Um. That is what my post was about. By definition, every comment you make, unless it is off-topic or meta, is about that.
In this case, Pudge is trying to link two seperate concepts
False. I explicitly separated the two concepts.
That really says it all. No one here is arguing with Article II
Shrug. You have two choices: either people ARE arguing with Article II, or they are -- like you -- misusing the term "Unitary Executive."
What Jenson & I are talking about is unchecked executive overreach: "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal"
Um. Yes. I know you are talking about that. And it has nothing to do with the subject of my post, and has nothing to do with the Unitary Executive.
You are obviously embarassed because it has been shown you can't read. But don't take it out on me.
What Jenson & I are talking about is unchecked executive overreach:
What you're talking about is not the issue with a unitary executive, but a legislative and legal branch who refused to exercise their own Constitutional powers.
Apparently Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid didn't want to exercise their role as leaders of the Congress to examine and, if necessary, restrict the actions of the Executive.
That's not a failure of the Unitary Executive; that's a failure of Pelosi and Reid.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 9, 2009 04:55 PM