User:Superb Owl/sandbox/Unitary Executive Theory

Adjectives
Controversial

"quasi legal doctrine",

"so-called" and "expansive interpretation"

"laughable"

"selective" in its reading of the constitution

"a defining characteristic of autocracy."

"ahistorical" and of a "dubious pedigree"

Lead
The theory interprets Section 1 of Article Two of the Constitution as solely vesting "the executive Power" of the United States in the president. However, critics have disputed that interpretation of Section 1 while also pointing to competing provisions such as the Opinions Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause that limit a unitary executive.

Examples of similar theories in practice can be seen in backsliding democracies where they are often described as a form of executive aggrandizement. In the United States, no state governments have implemented such a theory.

Critics of the theory argue that the reading of the constitution as a selective "quasi legal doctrine" at best and "laughable" at worst. They also point to its corrollaries in other democracies as leading to executive aggrandizement and democratic backsliding, with David Driesen calling it "a defining characteristic of autocracy."

"Oath" clause
"The second pillar is the “Oath” clause, which requires the president to protect and defend the Office of the Presidency and the Constitution of the United States. This clause obligates the president to oppose any activity that he independently believes is unconstitutional. As former Supreme Court Justice (and advocate of the unitary executive) Antonin Scalia argued in a 1987 opinion, the president is required to “veto encroaching laws…or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.”6 For instance, when Bill Clinton signed a military spending bill in 1996 that banned HIV-positive military personnel from service in the military, he issued a bill signing statement where he informed Congress that he would not enforce the provision (order the Defense Department to remove personnel) nor would he defend the provision if challenged. Congress capitulated and removed the provision before it could go into effect."

"Take Care" clause
"The third pillar is the “Take Care” clause, which requires the president to supervise and manage how executive branch subordinates carry out Article II functions. Broadly speaking, this allows the president to control what information flows to Congress (even where Congress demands to be informed); it allows the president to decide the grounds of who can be fired even where Congress supposedly limits those grounds; and it allows the president to have influence over what rules and regulations get considered or even which ones go into effect."

Daniel Birk argues there was no evidence of the King having such powers outside of specific areas like foreign policy and the military, noting the King could not direct most law enforcement, regulatory or administrative officials. Birk criticizes some proponents of the strong unitary executive theory as being inconsistent over the originalism used to justify the theory.

Criticism of the strong version of the theory
The BBC described the theory as "controversial," while The Guardian described it as "contested" and a "quasi legal doctrine." In 2007, Norman Ornstein wrote in the Economist that an overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars and historians find the theory to be "laughable."

Growth of presidential powers
...

J.D. Vance, the 2024 Republican nominee for Vice President, has previously expressed support for firing every midlevel civil servant and replacing them with "our people."

Categories to add
Democratic backsliding

Democratic backsliding in the United States