Unitary Executive Theory

[Buffy]

The threads on honesty and evil governmental powers got me thinking about a hot inside-the-beltway topic that ought to get wider airplay, known by its cognoscenti-term "Unitary Executive Theory".

Our current Supreme Court nominee in the US was quoted recently discussing this theory: "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that, the president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing." (this quote was taken from a Wall Street Journal article for those of you who want to jump to the conclusion that it was taken out of context!)

The basic justification for this is that the Constitution states that congress' powers are limited to what is explicitly defined in the Constitution, whereas there is no such limitation in the description of "executive power." This is the reasoning behind the Bush administrations recent actions that not only contravene explicit laws passed by the congress, but that the executive branch is given the power to circumvent and disobey such laws whenever it sees fit. There's a growing number of articles on this topic, just google the subject line with quotes around it.

So gang, is this a good way to run a country? Why or why not? Is it still okay if a Democrat is the president? Is this going to be yet another interesting experiment in the law of unintended consequences? Is this the wave of the future? Are there parallels here to other governments in recent history? Can you say Baathist?

Executively speaking,
Buffy

[questor]

does a law exist if it hasn't been passed? ''the congress proposes, the president disposes.'' an executive executes leadership. the president must be proactive in his duties, especially in wartime. in the absence of statute to the contrary, i would say the president should carry out all neccessary means to protect the citizenry. which protective measures would you curtail?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Buffy

The basic justification for this is that the Constitution states that congress' powers are limited to what is explicitly defined in the Constitution, whereas there is no such limitation in the description of "executive power." This is the reasoning behind the Bush administrations recent actions that not only contravene explicit laws passed by the congress, but that the executive branch is given the power to circumvent and disobey such laws whenever it sees fit. There's a growing number of articles on this topic, just google the subject line with quotes around it.

Can anyone say, "Elected King?"

There are most certainly a growing number of articles on the topic, and many people's thinking on this topic is becoming more and more aligned (or perhaps, polarized???). Is the increase a result of greater awareness and recognition by the citizenry of what's happening, or is the increase a result of greater and more frequent abuses of said power? I don't know. Prolly both.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

does a law exist if it hasn't been passed? ''the congress proposes, the president disposes.'' an executive executes leadership. the president must be proactive in his duties, especially in wartime. in the absence of statute to the contrary, i would say the president should carry out all neccessary means to protect the citizenry. which protective measures would you curtail?

Just to clarify, the issue that has been raised is not if there's *no* law, but rather when there are explicit laws. At the moment there are two issues that have come to light:

1. In the case of roving wiretaps, there is an explicit law *and* a well developed mechanism for approving secret wiretaps, and even a "tap first and ask for permission later" provision. The administration has claimed numerous times that they follow this law, but it has now come to light--and the administration has even admitted it--that they have ignored the law and they will continue to do so, although they have yet to explain why the law is an undue burden considering all the exceptions and allowances it provides.
2. In the case of John McCain's law prohibiting torture--which the administration fought furiously to stop, including a full-court press by Dick Cheney, and in spite of continuing statements from Bush that " this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad"--at the signing of the law Bush said that he will "construe" the ban "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president ... as commander in chief" meaning he'll ignore it if he feels like it (a point that was confirmed on background by a "senior administration official").

I think you'll find a lot of people who feel that the president should act in emergencies when time is of the essence, and the laws actually do allow for that (to say otherwise is propaganda). The key question here is that given the "war on terror" has been defined in a way that parallels the 40-year "cold war" and the seemingly unending "war on drugs," is using any claim of "war" or "emergency" an excuse to ignore *existing* laws?

May you live in interesting times,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Buffy

In the case of roving wiretaps, there is an explicit law *and* a well developed mechanism for approving secret wiretaps, and even a "tap first and ask for permission later" provision. The administration has claimed numerous times that they follow this law, but it has now come to light--and the administration has even admitted it--that they have ignored the law and they will continue to do so, although they have yet to explain why the law is an undue burden considering all the exceptions and allowances it provides.

There's also a secret court, which issues secret warrants, and which does so within the hour (I think that's what I heard on NPR), yet administrative officials chose to bypass this system, explicitly setup for these purposes, as well.

We had intelligence information from multiple agencies coming to our government officials before the 9/11 strike and they still couldn't piece enough of it together to stop it... Now they are trying to tell us that by listening to hunderds of thousands of telephone conversations and by combing through millions and billions of randomly spoken words that we are somehow going to be safer and better prepared? Do unicorns exist too?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

There's also a secret court, which issues secret warrants, and which does so within the hour (I think that's what I heard on NPR), yet administrative officials chose to bypass this system, explicitly setup for these purposes, as well.

That's what I was referring to. Its the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for those of you who want to learn more. And there are other laws covering domestic surveillance too that provide similar secret mechanisms when there is justification for it.

You can't torture the Secretary of Defense's kid, Bauer!
Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, in going to your link, the web page was unavailable. no doubt W or Chaney disabled it. what i would really like to know from the critics is the proper way to carry out covert surveillance against suspected terrorists' telephone calls? and perhaps how to interrogate captured terrorists so as not to hurt their feelings?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

Buffy, in going to your link, the web page was unavailable. no doubt W or Chaney disabled it.

"Never ascribe to subterfuge that which can be ascribed to incompetence." Works for me. Try cutting and pasting this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

Originally Posted by questor

what i would really like to know from the critics is the proper way to carry out covert surveillance against suspected terrorists' telephone calls? and perhaps how to interrogate captured terrorists so as not to hurt their feelings?

Its outlined in the law. You should not believe those who say that this law places an undue burden: its completely secret, the government can look first and ask permission days after the fact. What more could you want, except to just be able to listen to anything you want for no reason at all? Are you sure you want this power invested in an executive who believes that the second amendment is 'advisory' and to "protect Americans" starts confiscating guns?

On torture: the folks who want to torture have never even served in action. John McCain spent years being tortured. He knows how useless it is. As alluded to above, even on 24, the value of torture is questionable. The weak will say anything you want, the strong will never talk. What's the point when all you get is blood on your hands? WWJD?

Would you prefer battery acid in the eyes or testicle shocks?
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Would you prefer battery acid in the eyes or testicle shocks?

Seriously... put a camera crew in place and you could get seriously rich with some Pay-per-view of that! I mean, look at some of the programs on the SPIKE tv network, or in various other countries...

Originally Posted by Buffy

What more could you want, except to just be able to listen to anything you want for no reason at all? Are you sure you want this power invested in an executive who believes that the second amendment is 'advisory' and to "protect Americans" starts confiscating guns?

I know others have said this in other ways and in other contexts, and I hate how overused statements like this are, but doesn't this all reek a little bit of 1930s Germany?

[questor]

Buffy, you said:
''You should not believe those who say that this law places an undue burden: its completely secret, the government can look first and ask permission days after the fact.''
if this is a fact, then why are people bitching? isn't this what the administration did? what are your suggestions to improve the matter?

''On torture: the folks who want to torture have never even served in action. John McCain spent years being tortured. He knows how useless it is. As alluded to above, even on 24, the value of torture is questionable''

i assume you think that Bush and Chaney enjoy tortuing others for no particular reason. i wonder if they received videos or photos to heighten the pleasure? i wonder if they also enjoyed the pictures of the ''insurgents''
beheading innocent people? would you advise catch and release for the insurgents? why should we hold them at all? do you have some polite ways to get info from these people?