The debate over the unitary executive theory—the theory that the President should have sole control over the executive branch of government—has proven extremely parochial. Supporters of the theory argue that the original intent of our country’s founders requires presidential control, including a power to remove federal officials from their posts for political reasons. Opponents of the theory rely on functional considerations and our practice of dispersing power more widely. But neither side examines developments abroad to see what light other countries’ experience might shed on the question of whether the Supreme Court should craft a new rule of constitutional law cementing presidential control over the executive branch of government. This Article examines that experience, primarily through case studies of recent democratic decline in Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. Show
It shows that centralization of head-of-state control over the executive branch of government provides a pathway to autocracy. Indeed, unilateral presidential control of the executive branch constitutes a defining characteristic of autocracy. In all of these countries, authoritarian leaders secured legislation or constitutional amendments establishing effective head-of-state control over key bureaucracies that usually enjoy substantial independence in a well-functioning democracy, such as the prosecution service, the electoral commission, and the media authority. Autocrats use this power to shield their supporters from prosecution while persecuting political opponents, to tilt the electoral playing field in favor of the ruling party, and to shrink the public space for debate; thus, severely impairing democracy and the rule of law. Realization that the unitary executive paves the way for autocracy reframes the unitary executive debate. We must ask whether the Supreme Court should establish a practice by judicial fiat that authoritarians established through legislation and constitutional amendment. This Article explains that our tradition favors a construction of the Constitution that reduces the risk of losing our democracy and urges rejection of the unitary executive theory. Some believe the president holds broad power, citing this passage from Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. And from Section 3: [H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. The view that the president holds total control over the executive branch is called the unitary executive theory. Unitary Executive TheoryUnder the George W. Bush administration's interpretation of the unitary executive theory, the president has authority over members of the executive branch. He functions as a CEO or Commander-in-Chief, and his power is restricted only by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the judiciary. Congress can hold the president accountable only by censure, impeachment or constitutional amendment. Legislation restricting the executive branch has no power. Imperial PresidencyHistorian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote The Imperial Presidency in 1973, a groundbreaking history of presidential power centering on an extensive critique of President Richard Nixon. New editions were published in 1989, 1998 and 2004, incorporating later administrations. Although they originally had different meanings, the terms "imperial presidency" and "unitary executive theory" are now used interchangeably, although the former has more negative connotations. Short HistoryPresident George W. Bush's attempt to obtain increased wartime powers represented a troubling challenge to American civil liberties, but the challenge is not unprecedented:
Independent CounselCongress passed several laws restricting the power of the executive branch after Nixon's "imperial presidency." Among these was the Independent Counsel Act which allows an employee of the Department of Justice, and thereby technically the executive branch, to operate outside the president's authority when conducting investigations of the president or other executive branch officials. The Supreme Court found the Act to be constitutional in Morrison v. Olson in 1988. Line-Item VetoAlthough the concepts of the unitary executive and the imperial presidency are most often associated with Republicans, President Bill Clinton also worked to expand presidential powers. Most notable was his successful attempt to convince Congress to pass the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, which allows the president to selectively veto specific parts of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. The Supreme Court struck down the Act in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998. Presidential Signing StatementsThe presidential signing statement is similar to the line-item veto in that it allows a president to sign a bill while also specifying which parts of the bill he actually intends to enforce.
Possible Use of TortureThe most controversial of President George W. Bush's signing statements was attached to an anti-torture bill drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona): The executive branch shall construe (the McCain Detainee Amendment) in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch ... which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President ... of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Cite this Article Format mla apa chicagoYour Citation Head, Tom. "Unitary Executive Theory and the Imperial Presidency." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/unitary-executive-theory-the-imperial-presidency-721716 (accessed January 7, 2023). Why did Hamilton want a unitary executive?According to Alexander Hamilton, a unitary executive is necessary to: ensure accountability in government. enable the president to defend against legislative encroachments on his power. ensure "energy" in the executive.
Who wrote Federalist 70?Table of Contents. What is the imperial presidency theory?The term "imperial presidency" states that the office of President of the United States, akin to a classical ruler of an empire, is the head of state of a geographical, military and economic superpower, has broad executive power and is advised by a bureaucratic staff akin to a classical imperial court.
Which of the following is an example of the unitary executive theory quizlet?Which of the following is an example of the unitary executive theory? The president as commander in chief can unilaterally commit troops to a foreign country.
|