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]

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?" :lol: :lol:

 

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]

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]

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]

In the case of roving wiretaps, there is an explicit law *and* a well developed mechanism for approving secret wiretaps

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]

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

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]

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! :P :lol: :P I mean, look at some of the programs on the SPIKE tv network, or in various other countries...

 

 

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? :P

[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?

[questor]

you know, it's a little sickening to hear the armchair quarterbacks undermining the President and the war effort while offering nothing to improve things. to compare Bush to the Nazi's is despicable. have you had Storm Troopers at your door? had any friends dragged away for the furnaces?

had any changes in your way of life? are you afraid to go out on the street?

why not have the guts to put your views out there so we can see what kind of world yours would be?

[Buffy]

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?

Nope. What the law says is that you can come back within (I think) 72 hours after the fact and ask permission. This handles any immediate need. What we're finding out about is instances where there was never any intention of asking. Is that okay?

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?

If that's what you think they were doing, that would definitely be worse. But the fact that that is the only response that has been given is a pretty pitiful debate tactic. No one is saying that its being done for "no reason." While some believe that Bush and Cheney are evil, I know that at least Bush does truly believe that there are reasons to do this. This is not the point: the question is why do something when it does not work and when the consequences are worse than the benefits?

i wonder if they also enjoyed the pictures of the ''insurgents'' beheading innocent people?

You seem here to be advocating torture as a mechanism for retribution. Are we morally superior if we engage in the same methods they do? When we torture, we may not actually know if people have information. Is torture or murder of possibly innocent people always justified, simply because someone on our side may be murdered? Is this moral?

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?

Who do we get it from? What are the limits? That 10 year old girl you are torturing may be an indoctrinated insurgent, or she may not know. Are you going to make her "think she is drowning" in order to find out? Where do you draw the line? Or is *any* action okay as long as it potentially might possibly maybe uncover a piece of information that leads to a possible potentially harmful event?

 

Again WWJD?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[questor]

if someone from Al Qeada is calling someone in the US, i want to know NOW, not 72 hours later. are you worried about your 'phone being tapped? i'm not.

but from your post, i assume you see no reason for haste or security.

as for torture, if you think putting a bag over a guy's head and making him stand on a box is torture, we have a large difference of opinion. how many case have you heard of that actually resulted in someone dying, being crippled or badly hurt? don't forget the bad guys have killed over 2000 Americans and maybe 100,000 Iraqis.

i have asked twice now for someone to state better ways for running the war, and so far, i've had no answers.

you are correct about the Bush haters. this hate is virulent and unrelenting. these people would see our country destroyed rather than support Bush.

if i were a Democrat, i would certainly be ashamed of a political party that had the likes of Teddy Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and their sycophants. fortunately, their influence seems to be waning.

[InfiniteNow]

if someone from Al Qeada is calling someone in the US, i want to know NOW, not 72 hours later. are you worried about your 'phone being tapped? i'm not.

The individuals who comprise and stand as leaders for Al Quaeda are certainly not stupid, and are very unlikely to be calling someone in the US directly to share some vital information regarding a terrorist plot... especially since the break of this story. The key players are much more likely to have some other means for the transmission of information... perhaps even a dedicated satellite for relay of information that they need shared quickly. :lol: There are other bits of information that we can glean from those calls (ones that truly involve terroristic discussion) that do come through, and I will concede any day of the week that this is important and useful information to have, but our framers found a system of checks and balances to be vital, and I for one agree whole-heartedly.

 

I frankly am concerned (not paranoid and sweeping my place for bugs or anything, but apprehensive) about my phone being tapped, my emails being read, cameras being installed in my home (as another 1984-Orwellian possibility further down if we continue with this slippery slope). It makes me wonder if we are truly living up to the ideals at home for which our brave service men and women are over there dying???

 

As for a better option, that's an amazingly complex question, and I don't have an answer. I recognize that Mr. Bush has many more difficult decisions to make every given day than I ever will. I'm going home tonight and my toughest decision is going to be "do I want pepperoni on my pizza or eggplant?"

 

Of course it's not easy to make these decisions or come up with some option that everybody loves and agrees with... but that doesn't negate the fact that our laws and society are changing in some very real ways, ways that (to me) seem very disrespectful to the people truly trying to protect us from such credible threats, and that we should be able to continue debating these issues intelligently in hopes of potentially finding that better option about which you asked.

[Buffy]

if someone from Al Qeada is calling someone in the US, i want to know NOW, not 72 hours later. are you worried about your 'phone being tapped? i'm not. but from your post, i assume you see no reason for haste or security.

For some reason you conveniently continue to avoid the fact that the law *does not prevent this*. You might want to think about some of the implications of the point of this Unitary Executive Theory as it means there is basically no reason for any laws whatsoever. *All* issues associated with expediency are handled, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up except for the fact that it appears as the only defense offered by the backers of this theory, and the point is that this position is clearly dissembling. You should try thinking for yourself!

as for torture, if you think putting a bag over a guy's head and making him stand on a box is torture, we have a large difference of opinion.

Actually the only case I've mentioned in this thread is "waterboarding" which is all the government will admit to and even in that case, the issue is really where is the line on *who*, would you torture a 10 year old girl if you thought that she *might* be an insurgent?

how many case have you heard of that actually resulted in someone dying, being crippled or badly hurt?

There sure are lots starting to come out like the discovery of a dozen torturees in the custody of the Iraqi Ministry of Defense which is our proxy there which might be excusable except for the government's formal policy of rendition and turning people who need to be interrogated over to other governments that do practice torture, and in some cases with virtually no evidence putting innocent people away for months. This is not to say that we should not be doing anything, and that you insist on saying that's the only alternative shows that the justification for *unlimited* torture simply isn't there. Moreover you continue to assume that the application of unlimited torture produces results, when its not clear that the benefits outweigh the consequences.

 

I know that it is difficult to contemplate that this issue is not black and white: that there may be grey lines that have to be drawn. The point that is being made here is that its *not* simple, and ignoring the implications of the government's actions are done at *all* our peril. So when you ask:

i have asked twice now for someone to state better ways for running the war, and so far, i've had no answers.

You're really not listening to the answers: its all about defining the lines that we go up to and don't pass. And *agreeing* as a society what those limits are. By having such limits, we have moral capital which we can use to win hearts-and-minds, without which we fall into an endless cycle of producing more terrorists in a replay of Hatfields and McCoys.

you are correct about the Bush haters. this hate is virulent and unrelenting. these people would see our country destroyed rather than support Bush.

That is a hateful comment in itself. Solutions are not found by imposing only what *you* think is the correct course of action, its about finding mutually acceptable solutions. If you fail to see the downsides of the actions you are advocating, you are not participating in a democratic process. You should stop hating people who disagree with you and start finding out what the trade-offs are that will make our society better:

Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.

 

-- Martin Luther King, Jr. 1957

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[questor]

Infinite, it is my understanding that this wiretapping was being done in an attempt to intercept calls made to terrorist cells in this country by Al Qaeda. i don't think anyone wanted to explore your or my life. if this is true, i have no problem with the wiretapping. there is no danger to regular citizens.

G.W.Bush will only be president a couple of more years, but we will still have Patrick Leahy, who has no problems in leaking classified information and Teddy Kennedy , who is now a poster boy for the worst that our Senate has to offer. if you want to worry about something while you're having your pizza, worry about these guys who have no compunction about undermining our country and our military.

[questor]

Buffy, in discussions one can frequently find non-sequiturs and a lack of understanding of cause and effect. also sometimes one can find themselves misquoted.

Buffy, ''You might want to think about some of the implications of the point of this Unitary Executive Theory as it means there is basically no reason for any laws whatsoever. *All* issues associated with expediency are handled,''

i was unaware that Bush had declared himself a ''Unitary Executive''

Buffy, ''For some reason you conveniently continue to avoid the fact that the law *does not prevent this*''

prevent what? if there is a 72 hour wait, there is a problem. if there is no wait, the situation can be handled. are you anticipating some dire consequence of Bush's action directed at the terrorists?

Buffy, '' the issue is really where is the line on *who*, would you torture a 10 year old girl if you thought that she *might* be an insurgent?

has a 10 year old girl been tortured, or is this a non-sequitur?

Buffy, ''and that you insist on saying that's the only alternative shows that the justification for *unlimited* torture simply isn't there.''

have i said somewhere that i advocate unlimited torture or is this a misquote?

Buffy, ''You're really not listening to the answers: its all about defining the lines that we go up to and don't pass. And *agreeing* as a society what those limits are.'

as i said, i'm not hearing answers. i'm hearing platitudes and misquotes.

war is a serious business, and it takes serious people to win. i don't think America has the cojones to win a war anymore. we have no consensus on what has to happen, and we have too many people criticizing the hard decisions that have to be made by the leaders. wars are not tea parties. they are not pleasant, and are actually abhorrent, but don't send brave people in to battle and then undercut them for political reasons.

i must have missed the better solutions to conduct security surveillence and win the war, could you point them out?