GOI: Senator Sam Brownback was on Hardball with Chris Matthews the other day and was lying about the definition of a "unitary executive." He stated that it was simply a statement that we should only have one President at a time.Hmmm. Wow, if that's all it is then how come all those senators spent all that time during the confirmation hearings of Alito asking him about the unitary executive. Why didn't they just have a quick, live vote that we should have one President at a time? I guess everyone is just supposed to trust the Senator. The sad thing is that many people don't bother to do their own research and just suppose that since their Senator said it to be so then it must be so.
What a lying sack of crap.
In truth, the doctrine of "unitary executive" is a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power.
And this from SSRN:
Several scholars have recently rearticulated the "unitary executive theory" of Article II, arguing that Article II vests the power to execute federal law solely in the President of the United States. Unitarians do not maintain that the President must personally execute all laws; Congress may establish an administrative bureaucracy and identify particular officials to assist the President in carrying out legislatively prescribed tasks. But, unitarians argue, such officials must always remain subject to the President's direction. On the surface, this unitary executive theory appears to be implicated when Congress conscripts or even authorizes state officials to implement federal programs. Unless these state officials are subject to presidential supervision, Congress violates Article II by cutting the President out of the execution loop.
GOI: So basically Unitarians believe that no one has the right to check executive priviledge and power. This means that Congress (and even perhaps the Supreme Court) would be subject to the President's direction which effectively tips the balance of power between the three branches of government to the executive.
Either this Senator Brownback is that stupid or he is lying through his teeth and if he is lying then one has to wonder why he felt the need to lie about such a controversial and important issue, eh?
Kansas, you're freaking me out with the Senator you put into office.
---End of Transmission---
3 comments:
Methinks the unitary executive shysters are feeling rather more desperate all the time.
I watched Brownback smirk knowingly at Matthews while spinning UET ineffectually.
UET is a clear and present absurdity.
Congress gets the final word here - check-mate! - and I'm frankly glad Alito championed this treachery for the American people to see.
Judge Samuel Alito is self-evidently unworthy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I believe the irony here is that this notoriety will surely lead to a recognised outer limit on the executive Power.
At any rate, it can't save Bush.
i'm glad you're blogging about this, James. i'm too fucking tired of the bullshit to write about it myself.
the latest comment by w had me howling this morning: alito should have an up-or-down vote because "he's a decent man." what the FUCK does that have to do with whether or not the democrats filibuster (yeah, i know - as if!) our ex-janitor jimmy was a very good and decent man - my grandfather is a decent man - but i will be damned if i'd want either of them to hold a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
ppppthpt.
sheesh. i guess i needed to get that off my chest. thanks for providing an outlet!
*banging head*
Anon: Yeah, Alito is bascially Tony Soprano's attorney if you ask me.
Andi: You bet!! Your comments made me laugh and they are RIGHT ON!!!
The whole "decent man" theory is totally bogus. Like you said, there are many, many, many people who are "decent" but we wouldn't want them on the court for a life-time.
Lifetime appointments need to be changed I think to say, ten years or less if you ask me.
Post a Comment