"Unitary Executive" is a fancy word

[LeftNYC]

for fascist dictator.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Yep

I'm wondering how long before the sheeple wake up-and if it will be too late.

[LeftNYC]

2. We'll be marched off to Gitmo by that point...nt

[quiet.american]

3. It's also a fancy word for treason, come to think of it. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

4. fancy words for fancy lads (nt)

[sui generis]

5. precisely - it means that the president can choose

to interpret the law, or absence of law any way he wishes.

That would likely also include the law that says congress has to approve of his decisions, including squelching the media, disbanding congress and establishing permanent martial law, overriding states rights, building and living in palaces, and cyanide gassing your immigrant populations and detractors, putting people in labor and re-education camps, and establishing elite military units as a branch of government.

There aren't a lot of reasons I can think of that we should physically depose a government, but this "unitary executive" idea is getting uncomfortably close to some social science fiction scenarios.

Centuries of wisdom and experience have led us to the idea of balance of powers, even in wartime. Why do these FREAKS think they know better?

[Vickers]

6. Can't we just call him "King" and be done with it?

:shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

7. Life would be easier if this was a unitarianship.

As long as Bush is the unitary executive.

[Igel]

8. I must say, I hadn't heard that word until this morning.

Does one want to believe in a "unitary judiciary" or "unitary legislative"? Do we believe that judicial powers are to be shared with the executive and legislative branches, or legislative powers are shared with the executive and judicial branches?

And is there any evidence in the text of the Constitution or pre-/post-ratification discussion of it? Are there three clearly distinct branches of government, with relations defined by the Constitution, or are the limits thoroughly blurred?

FDR was apparently firmly "unitary executive", to use the current term of art. The little I've read about the unitary executive business today--not from ideologues making outrageous or inflammatory claims, but trying to actually mount a principled argument--is extensive, mixed, and thought provoking. The vitriol, on both sides, is unenlightening and absolutist, focused on an immediate goal with little interest in setting up a reasonable framework that would work for most probable situations.

It strikes me that the controversy of the interpretive comments issued when * signs bills into law, as well as the military tribunals' judging non-combatants, might well mirror the unitary executive dispute. For it's simply the reverse: The executive's meddling in legislative and judicial affairs, and the usurping of powers in those two branches.