The Unitary Executive Branch

Ms. Law - Amen! For a more dire look at the potential consequences of an imperial Presidency, check out my thread, "Martial Law", wherein I ask the question: If this, or any other president, with the backing of the military, should start a war (or continue those in progress) and decide that for the good of the country elections will be suspended and a mild form of martial law imposed, is there anything we could do to stop him? It's a simple yes or no question - and cannot be answered by stating that Congress and the Courts would stop him If he had the support of the Military, how could anybody stop him? You need only look back at history to discover how despots come to power - over and over and over again. We are a baby country, and even though the optimists proclaim "it can't happen here", they don't seem to have an answer as to "why not?" Similar scenarios have occurred almost everywhere else on the globe at one time or another. Are we immune? What do you think?

Very well. The answer is, and was, no. I am sorry for backing my position.

Please keep threads in their threads.

Ms. Law - Amen! For a more dire look at the potential consequences of an imperial Presidency, check out my thread, "Martial Law", wherein I ask the question: If this, or any other president, with the backing of the military, should start a war (or continue those in progress) and decide that for the good of the country elections will be suspended and a mild form of martial law imposed, is there anything we could do to stop him? It's a simple yes or no question - and cannot be answered by stating that Congress and the Courts would stop him If he had the support of the Military, how could anybody stop him? You need only look back at history to discover how despots come to power - over and over and over again. We are a baby country, and even though the optimists proclaim "it can't happen here", they don't seem to have an answer as to "why not?" Similar scenarios have occurred almost everywhere else on the globe at one time or another. Are we immune? What do you think?

The problem is in the citizens of this country. They did vote in a government that they knew in thier hearts was dishonest. They listened to the terror pronouncements of lieing government officials about 9/11 and many other world problems. They dont read or listen to anything but the government propaganda in the papers and the TV. TV consists of 30 second government pronouncements that arnt necessarly truth. (Iraq was responsable for 9/11, Iraq has WMD's) Terror isent something new, it has been around for thousands of years. (The mafia in the 1900's, Timothy Mc Vey in 1980's all american terriosts. Untill the US citizen wakes up and realizes that our government is run by a bunch of bribed government officials nothing is going to get better. We need to educate ourselves instead of letting crooked politicians tell us what to believe. Our governed citizens are becoming more and more like the German citizens of Hitlers era. We need more diversity among our elected officials and the only way to do that is to kick out all the crooked politicians untill one can see a real difference in government. Dont you all realize that payments to government officials is nothing but leagiliazed bribery and untill this practice is brought under controll the richest and most powerful in our country have control of our government. I have gone on too long already so ill stop here.

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental-men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, years by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

-H. L. Mencken, July 26, 1920.


It seems appropriate.

Armageddon: Good for you! Seems like you're coming around....

Ah. Approval. Now my life has meaning.

Best thing is that this was an 80-year forecast.

Will they survive our infancy?

For that matter will we survive our infancy?

if we, as voters, learn to quit sticking our fingers in the fan, maybe.

ano nuevo, amigo. como te va ?

I can't wait for us to pass our infancy, but I imagine we'll survive it of pure stubbornness.

"America is a country that has no idea where it is going, but is determined to set a speed record getting there."

Incidentally, this case is the reason why Scalia, not Thomas, is currently on my avatar. (Which is just a cheesy way of saying "bookmark".)

I saw his dissent in that case and had the rare experience of agreeing with him.

I remain skeptical of the Unitary Executive Theory as an argument for expanding the powers of the presidency relative to Congress and the Federal courts. As justice Alito plausibly explained during his confirmation hearings, the theory is about the distribution, not the extent of executive power. President Bush may use the theory as a buzzword that manufactures the semblance of a constitutional argument. But I would be surprised if conservative jurists didn't see through this.

But something else has alarmed me about the unitary executive theory. The past week saw several media reports describing what seems to be a pattern of message discipline that the Bush administration imposed on scientists at federal agencies. In December, for example, the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended regulations about dust and soot. Apparently the administration didn't like the proposal, so EPA administrator Steven Johnson recommended something else instead. (Source: LA Times (Registration required))

In a similar development, James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued issuing stark warnings about global warming. Hansen says these threats happened over the phone, so there is no written record of them. NASA public affairs issued a statement in response saying that they are merely the same policy as "any other federal agency, corporation, or news organisation" in requiring any NASA employee to "coordinate (any statements) with the Office of Public Affairs. No exceptions." (Source: ABC News)

I think we agree that censoring supposedly independent scientists is awfully bad policy. But if the unitary executive theory makes inroads with the courts, could they hold such censorship constitutional? Based on some superficial FindLaw surfing, it seems they can't prohibit Hansen to speak up in his capacity as a citizen. The Supreme Court first decided this in Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), and has since affirmed it several times as it revisited the issue.

But what if Hansen is speaking in his capacity as a NASA scientist? NASA (and the EPA) are agencies of the federal executive. According to the constitution, all executive power is vested in the president. The "unitary executive theory" pushes this idea very far. So what happens if the president wants federal agency scientists to forget about science and deliver think tank sludge instead. Does the constitution, as interpreted under the unitary executive theory, give him the power to enforce this? As I said, it's extremely foolish and destructive policy -- but foolish and destructive policy isn't by itself unconstitutional. I'm worried.

Re: The Unitary Executive Branch

Impeach him or be quiet. He was voted in fairly. This is a democracy.

We're working on it, give us time.

Cycloptichorn

Re: The Unitary Executive Branch


Since when is being quiet required in a democracy?

Re: The Unitary Executive Branch


gaspppp!!! since january 20, 2001...

---

cyclo, i'm not sure we have to work on it anymore. if he keeps going the way he is, he's gonna do it to himself.

now that will be a red letter day :wink:

Re: The Unitary Executive Branch

It isn't. However, she is acting as though some legal action ought to be taken against Bush. It was to that idea that my comment applies.

Re: The Unitary Executive Branch


The facts that we are a democracy, or that Bush was voted in "fairly" are irrelevant to the question.

Impeachment is in our Constitution and is part of the democratic process.So is expressing the opinion that an impeachment is warranted.

There is even a not too distant chance that the political makeup of the House next year may make one possible.

Simply another attempt to stifle dissent, consciously or not.

ebrown, about the House, opinions are a-changing. Check this out:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0206/020706op.htm

Cycloptichorn