Scariest phrase in the whole bunch, IMO -

Post #241,242

1/13/06 4:08:50 AM

1/13/06 5:43:43 AM

Unitary Executive

This is precisely the kind of simplistic conflation beloved of the Wolfowitzicons of the world; while it can mean whatever you want it to mean ... in the mechanical CPA mind of a Boolean Meticulous like Scalito:

it can (perhaps like the \ufffdmovement in Germany in '33, to intermix Luther's 450th birthday with the ascendance of Hitler; Gott == F\ufffdhrer) -- justify Anything, Next. In the name of The Good.

(Thank Cthulhu that, none at least.. enquired into his holy practices; I don't think I could Bear hearing about that, too.)

After all those closing p\ufffdans of ecstasy - he's In. What that means We're In, along with Scalia + sock-puppet - we shall soon enough discover.

\ufffd PBS did an hour recently, Theologians under Hitler -
a rapid romp through the likes of Paul Althouse, Gerhard Kittle and Emmanuel Hirsch - Hirsch being a lot like our very own Father Coughlan, of those times.

Deja vu is rarely a fun phrase (especially of late.)

PS later - a Salon take:

Meek, mild and menacing

Samuel Alito's Willy Loman facade conceals seething resentments -- and a dangerous belief in unbridled presidential power.

By [link|http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/01/12/alito_bush/index.html| Sidney Blumenthal]

Jan. 12, 2006 | "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"

"No treaty," replied John Yoo, the former Justice Department official who wrote the crucial memos justifying President Bush's policies on torture, "war on terror" detainees and domestic surveillance without warrants. Yoo made these assertions at a public debate in December in Chicago, where he also espoused the radical notion of the "unitary executive" -- the idea that the president as commander in chief is the sole judge of the law, unbound by hindrances such as the Geneva Conventions, and possesses inherent authority to subordinate independent government agencies to his fiat. This concept is the cornerstone of the Bush legal doctrine.

Yoo's interlocutor, Douglass Cassel, professor at Notre Dame Law School, pointed out that the theory of the "unitary executive" posits the president above the other branches of government: "Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo" (one of Yoo's memos justifying torture). "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that," said Yoo.

Unquestionably, Judge Samuel Alito's self-professed "strong" belief in executive power was one of his greatest if not paramount credentials for Bush's nomination of him to the Supreme Court. The "unitary executive" is nothing less than "gospel," declared Alito in 2000, a theory that "best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure."

[More . . .]

ie Whenever I see someone talking perpetually in a mild-mannered monotone, I'm reminded how easily Pat Robertson (on the 700 Club) could adopt the same (Christian-niceness visage + snile) - while uttering intolerant and bestial characterizations of (whatever unHoly group he was trashing in that particular sentence, "jocularly".)

Control Freaks may indeed be perpetually seething internally, within that practised calm fa\ufffdade ... ..just before they whip out that Uzi from underneath the orale (fanon)... [psyche-psych] Imagine how Clark Kent here, was likely dissed for his mannerisms, say in the '70s? Then plug in the ~trauma Our marlowe suffered - and what that did to get his psyche into present fretful state. [/psyche-psych]

Luck to the teetering 'Republic'!

opty s/c + mas

Edited by Ashton Jan. 13, 2006, 04:15:42 AM EST

Scariest phrase in the whole bunch, IMO -

Unitary Executive

This is precisely the kind of simplistic conflation beloved of the Wolfowitzicons of the world; while it can mean whatever you want it to mean ... in the mechanical CPA mind of a Boolean Meticulous like Scalito:

it can (perhaps like the movement in Germany in '33, to intermix Luther's 450th birthday with the ascendance of Hitler; Gott == Führer) -- justify Anything, Next. In the name of The Good.

(Thank Cthulhu that, none at least.. enquired into his holy practices; I don't think I could Bear hearing about that, too.)

After all those closing pæans of ecstacy - he's In. What that means We're In, along with Scalia + sock-puppet - we shall soon enough discover.

PBS did an hour recently, Theologians under Hitler -
a rapid romp through the likes of Paul Althouse, Gerhard Kittle and Emmanuel Hirsch - Hirsch being a lot like our very own Father Coughlan, of those times.

Deja vu is rarely a fun phrase (especially of late.)

Edited by Ashton Jan. 13, 2006, 05:43:43 AM EST

Scariest phrase in the whole bunch, IMO -

Unitary Executive

This is precisely the kind of simplistic conflation beloved of the Wolfowitzicons of the world; while it can mean whatever you want it to mean ... in the mechanical CPA mind of a Boolean Meticulous like Scalito:

it can (perhaps like the movement in Germany in '33, to intermix Luther's 450th birthday with the ascendance of Hitler; Gott == Führer) -- justify Anything, Next. In the name of The Good.

(Thank Cthulhu that, none at least.. enquired into his holy practices; I don't think I could Bear hearing about that, too.)

After all those closing pæans of ecstasy - he's In. What that means We're In, along with Scalia + sock-puppet - we shall soon enough discover.

PBS did an hour recently, Theologians under Hitler -
a rapid romp through the likes of Paul Althouse, Gerhard Kittle and Emmanuel Hirsch - Hirsch being a lot like our very own Father Coughlan, of those times.

Deja vu is rarely a fun phrase (especially of late.)

opty s/c

Collapse All History

Post #241,246

by Another Scott

1/13/06 9:15:49 AM

Yeah, it could be scary. But it's hard to tell.

I think we all agree that (except in some rare circumstances?) ultimately the policy positions of the USA government are set and carried out by the President. We can't, for example, have the EPA taking one position and the DOJ taking another position in a trial. The executive has to speak in one voice.

However, that doesn't mean that the executive is superior to the other branches of government.

The rub apparently is when it comes to independent agencies set up by Congress like Independent Counsels that have some executive function but aren't controlled by the President.

I don't know. I really dislike buzzwords and reducing complicated topics to a couple of words or a phrase. Sometimes it is a meaningful simplification, but too often in politics it's just code to divide people into us/them and black/white groups.

Yoo, et al., have written (at least) 4 papers on their study of the "unitary executive". The last paper, covering Truman through Clinton, is [link|http://law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/pubs/yoo-unitaryexecinmodernera.pdf|here] (143 page .pdf). I haven't read it or the other three. Here's part of the conclusion of the last part:

p.142-143:

The main controversy during this fourth quarter of American history that bore on the unitary executive was over the constitutionality of the special prosecutor regime set up by the ethics in government act. The important point to note about that controversy is that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court\ufffds approval of the institution of independent counsels in Morrison v. Olson,713 the Ethics in Government Act was allowed to lapse in June of 1999 after both Democrats and Republicans had grown to appreciate its flaws. This rejection of the Ethics in Government Act some twenty years after it was first enacted is quite reminiscent of the repeal of the Tenure of Office Act under Grover Cleveland, which also occurred some twenty years after that statute was enacted. In both case, Congress was tempted to experiment with unconstitutional limits on the president\ufffds removal power, and in both cases the unconstitutional regime did not work out and was eliminated. The story of the rise and fall of both the Tenure of Office Act and the Ethics in Government Act are eerily similar and stand as stark reminders of the dangers that can occur when the power to execute the law is placed outside of presidential control.

That the unitary executive would emerge from this era as an open constitutional question is rendered all the more remarkable in light of the radical expansion of presidential power during this era. This serves a stark refutation of those who have argued that the increase in executive authority justified sanctioning greater legislative intervention in the execution of the law.714

We do not expect, however, that the demise of the independent counsel law will forestall further controversy surrounding the unitariness of the executive branch. Indeed, many of these issues have begun to play themselves out once again during the Administration of George W. Bush. The question about the proper scope of presidential control over the execution of the law arose when creating the new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. Given the sensitive nature of the antiterrorism work to be conducted by the Department, Bush was adamant that the president have the unilateral power to remove Department officials at will.

Disagreement by Senate Democrats led to an impasse that would ultimately be settled by the 2002 midterm elections, in which the Republicans successfully gained control of the Senate. It is thus likely that we have not yet seen the last of the debates surrounding the unitary executive. It is our hope that in reviewing the history of presidential practices with respect to the execution of the law, this project will help provide the historical context in front of which the relevant legal and normative issues can be discussed.

It doesn't seem to be a very strong argument that Congress can't constrain executive power through the use of independent agencies like ICs. After all, the USSC said they could. Rather that Congress can change its mind about them when the majority changes...

Bottom line for me: I try not to get worked up by commentaries like Blumenthal's. Why didn't he give complete sentences in his quotes? I'm usually suspicious of fragmentary quotes - it's too easy to take things out of context. I would want to at least skim through Yoo's 4 papers more carefully before coming to any conclusion about whether it advocates some sort of Imperial Presidency.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!