|
i'm not going to get into this deeply, but I did want to comment on the "unitary executive" theory. People are confusing this with the scope of executive power, which is a different issue.
First sentence of Article II of the Const says (in paraphrase) the executive power of the US shall be vested in a President. The "unitary executive" theory says this sentence means that whatever executive power of the US is, it resides in the president and not elsewhere. Only one executive. That's the unitary executive theory. It tells you nothing about the content of the executive power and it tells you nothing about the scope of the executive power. It tells you only who has it. So, for example, Congress can't administer the Dept of Transportation because that's an executive function.
The real argument that has been going on is not over the unitary executive, but over the content and scope of the President's power. Different issue. Using the wrong label for it confuses the analysis.
|