The Unitary Executive Branch

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Let's talk about the future of our nation under Bush's version of the Unitary Executive Branch. Let's start with this FindLaw article:

The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?

Quote:

. . . we need to decide whether a President who has determined to ignore or evade the law has not acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,763 • Replies: 121

No top replies

It's a stealth dictatorship.

0 Replies

Lets see...

Congress (Legislative Branch) still proposes the laws...

The President (Executive Branch) still decides whether to sign or veto those laws...

The Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) still decides if those laws are Un-Constitutional...

Looks like the Representative Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers is still intact.

I love when trolls bloviate just to hear the sound of their own paranoid delusions brought to life.

0 Replies

The Unitary Executive theory, as I understand it (that's a disclaimer) just means that the president asserts his rights to control the executive branch. It's the interpretation of that by the president and his advisors that seems to make it dangerous -- mostly with regard to the passing of laws.

Fedral says "The President (Executive Branch) still decides whether to sign or veto those laws...". But it appears the president believes that as the "unitary executive" he can decide for himself if legislation is constitutional, and essentially change legislation by issuing signing statements that indicate which parts of a law he does or doesn't intend to execute. In the case of FISA and others, it appears he believes he has the right to interpret law and determine whether or not it is unconstitutional and then fail to execute it. In short, he believes not only that he is not bound by all laws, but that he has the power and the right to determine which laws he is subject to. That's why it's dangerous.

0 Replies

Excellent topic, Miss Law--i normally read along for a while before i put my oar in. That won't change here, but i did want to express my support for the examination you propose.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Lets see...

Congress (Legislative Branch) still proposes the laws...

The President (Executive Branch) still decides whether to sign or veto those laws...

The Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) still decides if those laws are Un-Constitutional...

Looks like the Representative Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers is still intact.

I love when trolls bloviate just to hear the sound of their own paranoid delusions brought to life.

Bravo

0 Replies

Once the laws are passed by congresses and signed into law by the president he is obligated to enforce those laws. He hasent the right to decide what laws he will observe and which ones he will not. The president isent a king with unlimited powers. He is not above the law. If it werent for the fact that congress was dominated by republicans he would be impeached for the illegal domistic spying he has OKed. Federal only told part of the story and was patted on the back by by the conseratives on this site.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Once the laws are passed by congresses and signed into law by the president he is obligated to enforce those laws. He hasent the right to decide what laws he will observe and which ones he will not. The president isent a king with unlimited powers. He is not above the law. If it werent for the fact that congress was dominated by republicans he would be impeached for the illegal domistic spying he has OKed. Federal only told part of the story and was patted on the back by by the conseratives on this site.

BRAVO !!

Quote:

Fedral
Lets see...

Congress (Legislative Branch) still proposes the laws...

The President (Executive Branch) still decides whether to sign or veto those laws...

The Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) still decides if those laws are Un-Constitutional...

Interestingly, that was also the situation all the while Nixon and his group of would be felons were breaking the law. But hey, if that's the measure that's good enough for conservatives, who are we to fiddle around with the rule of law?

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Once the laws are passed by congresses and signed into law by the president he is obligated to enforce those laws. He hasent the right to decide what laws he will observe and which ones he will not. The president isent a king with unlimited powers. He is not above the law. If it werent for the fact that congress was dominated by republicans he would be impeached for the illegal domistic spying he has OKed. Federal only told part of the story and was patted on the back by by the conseratives on this site.

Now I am "the conseratives on this site?"

I assure you I hold only one A2K identity. Cool

0 Replies

Whatever, but my take on the presidents obligation to the constutition and laws as passed by congress is correct. All the snappy repartee in the world wont change the facts.

0 Replies

The phrase "unitary executive" appeared in Justice Thomas's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:

Quote:

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government’s war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision. As such, petitioners’ habeas challenge should fail, and there is no reason to remand the case. The plurality reaches a contrary conclusion by failing adequately to consider basic principles of the constitutional structure as it relates to national security and foreign affairs and by using the balancing scheme of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). I do not think that the Federal Government’s war powers can be balanced away by this Court. Arguably, Congress could provide for additional procedural protections, but until it does, we have no right to insist upon them. But even if I were to agree with the general approach the plurality takes, I could not accept the particulars. The plurality utterly fails to account for the Government’s compelling interests and for our own institutional inability to weigh competing concerns correctly. I respectfully dissent. . . .

. . . The Founders intended that the President have primary responsibility–along with the necessary power–to protect the national security and to conduct the Nation’s foreign relations. They did so principally because the structural advantages of a unitary Executive are essential in these domains. . . .

. . . Congress, to be sure, has a substantial and essential role in both foreign affairs and national security. But it is crucial to recognize that judicial interference in these domains destroys the purpose of vesting primary responsibility in a unitary Executive. . . .

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZD1.html

0 Replies

So we have been reduced to a royal presidency who can ignore whatever laws he chooses as long as he invokes national security. And of course no proof can be given for his actions because it might help the enemy. Canada is looking better and better all the time.

0 Replies

Let me amend my last statement. The sob's arnt going to run me out of my own country. Rather im going to do everything in my power to run all these crooked politicians out of office.

0 Replies

At a quick glance of this title I thought it said "Urinary Executive Branch". Appropo for this piss poor "executive" currently residing in DC, but my mistake. Please excuse.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

The President (Executive Branch) still decides whether to sign or veto those laws...

if the president signs the law while smirking "boy..., is this check is gonna bounce, ah hee hee hee", the system is not working.

btw, paranoia is subjective. i was unaware that it had replaced the "vigilant" in the dictionary, either.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Whatever, but my take on the presidents obligation to the constutition and laws as passed by congress is correct. All the snappy repartee in the world wont change the facts.

Then that is our problem. Who voted in the Representatives who voted on that economic bill that drove us farther and farther in to debt? Who voted for the president? Note, of course, that the president has seven roles granted to him by the third article of our constitution:
1. Preside over the country and execute the actions of the legislative branch
2. Commander in Chief
3. conducts foreign policy
4. report on the State of the Union [Address]
5. apoints federal officers
6. veto/sign legislation
7. grant pardons
There is such a powerful system of checks and balances, the only thing the president can actually go crazy on is the State of the Union Address.
If there are financial problems, they started in the House. Bring it up with your local representative. He/she will be able to take care of it much more efficiently than the president. If he says something that you disagree with, well, that's his first amendment right, as it is yours.

Please stop wasting time discussing the state of our country as actually correlating with the opinions of the president. By assosciating yourself with those of us who know the laws they live under, you reduce the effect of all of our opinions on others.

0 Replies

The "Unitary Executive"is acurrently fashionable code phrase, suddenly being used at every turn by slavish adherents of the Democrat line. It s meaning is not particularly precise, but it is intended to conjur up dark impressions of a runaway Executive Branch with a President deciding which laws he will obey and which he will enforce. About the only thing Bush has done to excite all this is to insist that he is the head of the Executive Branch of government and all its agencies, and that they must follow his instructions as long as they are in accordance with law.
This is an affront to Democrat members of Congress who like to imagine that Federal Agencies are accountable to them in their day-to-day operations.They are not. Mostly though this is mere campaign rhetoric.

The real practicioners of imperial Presidencies were the Democrat Icons AndrewJ ackson, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

0 Replies

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

"In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

0 Replies

Hey look! The foreigners are more American then the Americans.

In fact I think the world is becoming more American then Americans and we are becoming the king.

0 Replies

Please do not insult those not in our country. They are merely tolerating our infancy.

0 Replies

The Unitary Executive Branch

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know