Unitary Executive

Originally Posted @ 11:45 am, 1/14/2006. Reposted with Comment Response.

During Judge Alito's confirmation hearing, Sen. Kennedy and his Democrat cohorts made hay over Judge Alito's interpretation of the 'Unitary Executive' theory. In short, it says the President is the head of the executive and controls the aspects therein. The nominee explained, "It has to do with who within the executive branch controls the exercise of executive power. And the theory is, the Constitution says the executive power is conferred on the president."

Sen. Kennedy decried this "radical theory" and Judge Alito's interpretation of it. He said it will erode independent agencies.

First, I agree some agencies may lose their authority. Those which are ineffective shouldn't exist. Second, how radical is it for a chief executive to control their domain? The President is the ELECTED (liberals always forget that, 'Bush stole it!') head of one branch. Nine Supreme Court Justices are unelected but unbeholden to anyone once confirmed. They serve the United States Constitution and comprise another branch. Finally, the Congress is made up of 535 voting members. Each member is elected by a segment of our nation; individually, they (especially House members) have the least representative opinion in our FEDERAL government. Some members prize themselves as excessively authoritative. They have no real power so they stir up the base and hope for the worst (for their adversaries). Don't believe me? Here's a liberal opinion from the first page I viewed while searching for information:

"Kennedy has also been pushing (Alito) on his penchant for deciding in favor of governmental abuse of power over the rights of individuals. The problem with Alito is that his historic actions suggest that he will rule in favor of Bush's restructuring of the Constitution and trampling on the rights of individuals. For some strange reason modern day Americans have bought the bill of goods that they have to give up their Bill of Rights." - Ellen Beth Gill, 1/11/2006.

She sounds riled up to me (mission accomplished Sen. Kennedy). At the very least she offers extreme hyperbole. It stands to reason 87.9% of Ms. Gill's readers said the Iraq War "was more than a mistake because of the lies and government connections to war profiteers."

Basically, think 'What are we talking about?' Is it individual power or the structure of our Federal government? Some claim President Bush is trying to take over the government, and that is asinine. The Congress can still rebuke the President and remove him if need be. The Supreme Court can stop any actions if they are unconstitutional. As far the executive branch, it is my understanding those within serve at the pleasure of the President.

Update: After our initial post, we contacted Ellen Beth Gill with the following message:

I have quoted you on "Politically, Right?" in a post titled 'Unitary Executive'. Also, there are several legal questions within "Politically, Right?" if you'd care to comment (I'd certainly appreciate it). Their titles are: Gambling Run Amuck, Where Have All The Lawyers Gone?, & Is It Domestic Spying?

And her response: Glen, you are a brain washed numnut and your children will rue the day you agreed to give up your rights to a facist regime and destroy our Constitution.

Perhaps Ms. Gill was too busy to formulate a coherent critique. She offers insults, pessimism, and cynicism but no rational opposition. She offers a personal attack and no debate (notice she avoided the legal questions I posed). To me, she sounds like an ideologue. Nothing more. I pity her if she actually believes her own rhetoric.