It's interesting that (a) it seems mostly favored by Republican presidents; and (b) the criticisms that "the theory could lead to more corruption and less qualified employees" would appear to have been empirically demonstrated to be true.
dragonwriter · 1d ago
> I think the term you're looking for is "unitary executive"
It's not. Unitary executive theory holds that Congress has no power to wall of inherent executive power from the President or to assign powers to the executive branch but deny the President control over them, which is problematic and IMO based on a tendentious (but ag least tenuously defensible) reading of Article II, but it is a far cry from unbound executvie dictatorship.
Which is not to say that there isn't some overlap between people arguing for the unitary executive theory and those actually pursuing unbound executive dictatorship, but they are not the same thing
Those pursuing unitary executive theory I consider political opponents, those seeking executive dictatorship unbound by law are enemies of the Constitution.
ck2 · 23h ago
Congress is doing almost exactly what Germany's parliament did for Hitler in 1930s:
Enabling Act
essentially one person rule, make all the judges not going along with it resign (or executed)
Everything with them is just for the spite, has nothing to do with logic or savings.
The next super space-telescope is already paid for at $3.5 Billion and is READY TO LAUNCH and they are trying to kill it out of spite
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-next-major-...
Everyone that gave them power is the problem, they are exactly as advertised.
No, if you have an executive dictatorship unbound by law, nothing Congress does matters.
It's interesting that (a) it seems mostly favored by Republican presidents; and (b) the criticisms that "the theory could lead to more corruption and less qualified employees" would appear to have been empirically demonstrated to be true.
It's not. Unitary executive theory holds that Congress has no power to wall of inherent executive power from the President or to assign powers to the executive branch but deny the President control over them, which is problematic and IMO based on a tendentious (but ag least tenuously defensible) reading of Article II, but it is a far cry from unbound executvie dictatorship.
Which is not to say that there isn't some overlap between people arguing for the unitary executive theory and those actually pursuing unbound executive dictatorship, but they are not the same thing
Those pursuing unitary executive theory I consider political opponents, those seeking executive dictatorship unbound by law are enemies of the Constitution.
Enabling Act
essentially one person rule, make all the judges not going along with it resign (or executed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933