Are Republicans still in favor of the "Unitary Executive" theory?

[JBeukema]

man, do conservatives still support it or not?

Ask after 2012

 

[loosecannon]

Sooo it means the question is meaningless, as I said.

It is what it is.

The Executive is unitary. So is the Judicial Branch, by the way. So is the Legislative Branch.

And that's not an "opinion." It is what it is, and what it is is fact.

excuse me, but the legislative branch is the exact opposite of unitary.

Do you know what unitary means as a legal term?

And your summary glosses over the implied meaning of Unitary exec. The implication is that of an executive who is above the checks and balances of the other two branches.

Entirely wrong. Your ignorance is astounding.

The Legislative branch IS unitary since it does not require (except for the final approval of a bill or its veto) any input from either of the other two branches to do its thing. That its set-up is bicameral doesn't make it any less unitary.

Your fantasy "implied" meaning of a "unitary executive" is not what you stupidly imagine an actual unitary executive to be.

The ACTUAL meaning is sufficient. And its actual meaning is that the executive branch is empowered to execute the laws pursuant to the terms and under the conditions established by the Constitution, and its ability to do that is not dependent on input from the Legislative Branch. For example (one of millions): the Executive is the Commander in Chief. When Congress authorizes military action, the President doesn't have to have an oversight committee from Congress micromanage where troops will be deployed.

None of this means ANY branch is above checks and balances. What it does mean is that doing its job is the province of each branch.

If you are attempting to grunt out that there are SOME overlaps within our Constitutional framework -- by design -- that much is true. But, it doesn't change the analysis. Your spin is bogus.

IOW you disregard both legal and popular definitions making the words Unitary Executive meaningless.

Cutely dismissive of you. Whatever.

The legislature is anything but unitary, as isn't the judicial system. The executive branch isn't even unitary, but don't worry your pretty little mind over reality.

If the executive was unitary than politicizing the DOJ would be expected. As would using the power of the FBI and CIA To blackmail your political opponents in the other branches.

The fact that there are express limits on the power of the presidency, even within his role in executing the law, proves you a fool arguing a fallacy.

And of course those limits have been upheld by the courts.

 

[DiveCon]

And signing statements that nullify the laws the President signs if the president deems it necessary?

Of course. Republicans pushed for the line item veto when Bush was in office.

The Line Item Veto is an unconstitutional shift of power from Congress to the President

WRONG

what was ruled unconstitutional was the WAY they tried to do it
you can not change constitutional duties by statute, you MUST do it by constitutional amendment

 

[JBeukema]

you can not change constitutional duties by statute, you MUST do it by constitutional amendment

SCOTUS has redefined the Constitution many times.

 

[DiveCon]

you can not change constitutional duties by statute, you MUST do it by constitutional amendment

SCOTUS has redefined the Constitution many times.

but congress can only do it by amendment

and really, SCOTUS shouldn't be at all

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although what should we expect from you? You never did finish the quote.

Are you proudly proclaiming that you are unaware of the fact that the part that I quoted is emphasized by the second clause???

Dummy, the Constitution with a capital 'C' is not the same as 'constitutions', lower-case 'c.'

Time for you to apologize?

Now you're denying what you meant and repeatedly said throughout the thread?

At least it's a change; you've been hiding for the last six months.

So, spin rather than admit you were wrong?

For shame....

The quote was there and the second clause easily accessible...go ahead and explain how there are alternative interpretations.

Or is English a second language for you...?

Seems to me that my point always was that Woodrow Wilson denied both the message of the Founders and the necessity of the Constitution...that's Constitution with a capital C.

Obfuscate much?

Give you another chance to admit you were wrong......

In the words of the Brown Bomber, you can run but you can't hide.

 

[Liability]

excuse me, but the legislative branch is the exact opposite of unitary.

Do you know what unitary means as a legal term?

And your summary glosses over the implied meaning of Unitary exec. The implication is that of an executive who is above the checks and balances of the other two branches.

Entirely wrong. Your ignorance is astounding.

The Legislative branch IS unitary since it does not require (except for the final approval of a bill or its veto) any input from either of the other two branches to do its thing. That its set-up is bicameral doesn't make it any less unitary.

Your fantasy "implied" meaning of a "unitary executive" is not what you stupidly imagine an actual unitary executive to be.

The ACTUAL meaning is sufficient. And its actual meaning is that the executive branch is empowered to execute the laws pursuant to the terms and under the conditions established by the Constitution, and its ability to do that is not dependent on input from the Legislative Branch. For example (one of millions): the Executive is the Commander in Chief. When Congress authorizes military action, the President doesn't have to have an oversight committee from Congress micromanage where troops will be deployed.

None of this means ANY branch is above checks and balances. What it does mean is that doing its job is the province of each branch.

If you are attempting to grunt out that there are SOME overlaps within our Constitutional framework -- by design -- that much is true. But, it doesn't change the analysis. Your spin is bogus.

IOW you disregard both legal and popular definitions making the words Unitary Executive meaningless.

Cutely dismissive of you. Whatever.

The legislature is anything but unitary, as isn't the judicial system. The executive branch isn't even unitary, but don't worry your pretty little mind over reality.

If the executive was unitary than politicizing the DOJ would be expected. As would using the power of the FBI and CIA To blackmail your political opponents in the other branches.

The fact that there are express limits on the power of the presidency, even within his role in executing the law, proves you a fool arguing a fallacy.

And of course those limits have been upheld by the courts.

Wrong again. No "other words" needed. I shall reiterate it for your benefit. YOUR definition is bullshit. I disregard your bogus definition.

It's not my fault that you fail to grasp the meaning of the term you are attempting to discuss.

The ignorance is, as always, all yours.

Each Branch is unitary within its own province -- except, as I correctly noted before, where the Constitution imposes some limited overlap and where it imposes certain checks and balances.

I realize you are unable (due to your abiding ignorance) to grasp that the actual definition of "unitary executive" is simple and straightforward. But it is: the President controls the entire executive branch.

To further edify yourself, cannonfodder, see Article II of our Constitution. Thank me.

Congress does not control the Executive branch. Congress does have some obvious forms of restraint on the Executive, but that's not "control" of the Executive Branch. When the purposes of the government are such that an FBI agent needs to get his or her ass fired, for example, Congress does not get to veto that firing. If a U.S. Attorney is to be fired, political bullshit shit-storm to ensue or not, the President does it and the Congress gets no vote in the matter. Why is this the case? Because (as the correct definition advises us) the PRESIDENT controls the Executive Branch of government.

 

[loosecannon]

Of course. Republicans pushed for the line item veto when Bush was in office.

The Line Item Veto is an unconstitutional shift of power from Congress to the President

WRONG

what was ruled unconstitutional was the WAY they tried to do it
you can not change constitutional duties by statute, you MUST do it by constitutional amendment

which means that the line item veto is currently unconstitutional as determined by the SC.

 

[loosecannon]

Each Branch is unitary within its own province

that is a self negating phrase.

the President controls the entire executive branch.

only since 2000. Before then you would have to scroll back to FDR and Lincoln to find examples of a unitary executive.

For example Nixon presided over a CIA that was actually in active rebellion against the executive!

FWIW there are legal scholars who agree with your desire to have a unitary exec, esp recently. But there are few legal scholars who will argue that we have or do empowered the executive with all authority over the executive branch.

As in: "no it isn't ok to terminate every US attorney and replace them with hand picked political lackeys". And "no it isn't ok to politicize the DOJ". And "no it isn't ok to politicize the CIA".

 

[Liability]

Each Branch is unitary within its own province

that is a self negating phrase.

Wrong again. No. It is not "self-negating. You moron. Your ability to use important sounding phrases is laughably undercut by your ability to comprehend their meaning.

the President controls the entire executive branch.

only since 2000. Before then you would have to scroll back to FDR and Lincoln to find examples of a unitary executive.

For example Nixon presided over a CIA that was actually in active rebellion against the executive!

FWIW there are legal scholars who agree with your desire to have a unitary exec, esp recently. But there are few legal scholars who will argue that we have or do empowered the executive with all authority over the executive branch.

As in: "no it isn't ok to terminate every US attorney and replace them with hand picked political lackeys". And "no it isn't ok to politicize the DOJ". And "no it isn't ok to politicize the CIA".

Wow. You really are lame. I do not have a "desire" for a unitary execvutive, stupid. As I correctly pointed out to you several times, it is what it is. It is already a unitary executive.

The DoJ is already "politicized" to a fair extent, stupid. That's a function of the appointive nature of the positions within the DoJ. And when the President is ultimately responsible for executing the laws, you simpleton, he HAS to be vested with the power, authority and the ability to hire competent attorneys for the DoJ and to fire them, too. The choice is not Congress' to make. It follows that you are wrong yet again. It is absolutely "alright" for the President to fire U.S. Attorney's.

What you apparently favor is a rending of Separation of Powers. Sorry. Application denied.

Why do you even bother to try to argue when you don't have the first fucking clue on the topic?

 

[loosecannon]

You think that because you are wrong, PL.

 

[Liability]

You think that because you are wrong, PL.

No. I know you are wrong and that you don't have the slightest fucking clue on the topic because your posts have already proved as much, loosebowel.

Hell. Schmucks like you cannot even provide the correct definition of the term you are attempting (ineffectually) to "discuss."

 

[loosecannon]

you think that because you are always wrong!