Unitary Executive Theory A Recipe For Dictatorship

[Demeter]

http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/unitaryexecutivetheory.html





"A deviant theory, inherently anti-American, with no place anywhere in our system of government."



By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
Search our pages => http://loveallpeople.org/searchallpages.html


First written January, 2006


The "Unitary Executive" theory is really just another name for the ancient "King With Advisors" form of government, widely used around the world for thousands of years in human history. The basic idea is that the King has the final authority and makes all the final decisions. He may consult with his advisors, but he is free to disregard their advice. He may look at the law, but he is not required to follow it. The role of the people is to go along quietly with whatever the King wants to do.
THE ESSENTIAL PROBLEM FOR US is that this Theory denies the authority of Congress, the Supreme Court, or anything else to interfere with the President's performance of his functions, however he chooses. Thus Congress and the Supreme Court become merely Advisors, with no authority over the President. That is Dictatorship, the very thing the American Revolution was fought to eliminate. Thus we see that the Unitary Executive Theory is a deviant theory, inherently anti-American, and has no place anywhere in our system of goverment. - Details below.




Throughout history, the typical forms of human political organization have been the Family, the Tribe or Clan, the Kingdom or City-state, and the Empire, in ascending order of size, with each level having authority over the levels below it. These all can easily be understood to be varieties of the King-With-Advisors form, different only in their levels of organization. The King consults with his advisors, then makes decisions which must be followed by all of the people and organizations below him. And in most cases, the ultimate authority is believed to have come from the God(s), down to the King, then down to the People. So all of these forms are examples of the Unitary Executive theory...When everything works well, the King-With-Advisors form of government, within the context of just laws, provides Justice and Happiness to the people, as shown in the Bible under the reign of "Good King Josiah," and elsewhere.


But sometimes the Kings are not so good. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Then Injustice and Unhappiness arise, and the people demand something better. This happened in England in the year 1215 when the Barons (essentially Chiefs) under the King felt that the King was abusing his authority, and they forced him to accept a bill of rights known as the Magna Carta. This document guaranteed that "all free men of our Kingdom," and their heirs, would have a certain list of rights "forever," and that nobody could take them away. This was a major break from the Unitary Executive theory, in that the authority of the Unitary Executive (the King) had been severely limited by those beneath him in authority. The Signing of the Magna Carta is still remembered today as a major milestone in the march of Humanity toward Liberty under Law.

Source: http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation.html

An even greater break from the Unitary Executive theory occurred in 1776 when the English colonies in America declared their complete independence from the King and established their own form of self-government under a written Constitution. Under this Constitution (now our Constitution), the people were to govern themselves, with no King, through their elected Representatives to Congress. And a President was to be elected to faithfully execute whatever Laws Congress might enact. In our Constitutional system, the authority flows from God, down to the People, then down to their elected Congress and the Supreme Court, then down to the President, whose job it is to execute the laws made by Congress, for the People. So the People are the King, and both Congress and the President are subject to the will of the people. The President has no legislative authority whatsoever; and the executive authority he does have is subject to direction and instruction by Congress at any time.
After the American Revolution in 1776, following our lead, much of the World began to move away from the Unitary Executive form of government, to some form of representative Democracy, roughly similar to ours. In country after country, Kings were replaced or severely restricted by elected legislative bodies like our Congress or the English Parliament....

[meow2u3]

1. K & R

[Dr.Phool]

2. Another K&R!

What don't Pelosi and Reid understand about this? There is no such thing as a "Unitary Executive" in a republic.

It's a dictator under another name, and every Justice on The Supreme Court, such as Alito, who supports it should be immediately removed from the bench.

[tblue37]

6. Chief Justice Roberts is also a huge fan of the Unitary Executive theory.

Of course, they would get their panties in a wad over the idea of a Democratic president attempting to act as a Unitary Executive. Their love is for a Republican dictator. Their plan was always to establish a one-party state with a dictator from that party. They dreamed of another thousand-year reich.

[Demeter]

3. We Need One More Rec On This Lovely Piece to Preserve It! Please Stop In!

[kas125]

4. Proud to do so. Thanks for posting it! n/t

[dgauss]

5. I have a feeling that many people, when they hear the term

"executive," have a vague sense that Unitary Executive has something to do with the business world. There's a guy in a three piece suit, looks like a CEO. Who knows? Isn't a single CEO better than a bunch of CEOs?

They don't realize it has to do with kings and dictators.