Just what is "The Unitary Executive"?
The Webster Retort, Jan. 27, 2006
By Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Pronunciation: "yü-ni-'la-t&-r&l, -'la-tr&l
Function: adjective
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE-SIDED c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party.
2 a: having parts arranged on one side B : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts.
Source: Merriam-Webster Online
The signing statement was most recently employed by Bush Jr. when he signed the McCain anti-torture bill into law. "The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President as Commander in Chief," wrote Bush, adding that the signing statement "will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President of protecting the American people from further attacks."
In short, Congress passed a law with near unanimous support in the Senate (only nine out of 100 voted against it), and Bush affixed a sticky note to the law that makes it null and void at the time and date of his choosing. Citing the Unitary Executive doctrine of Samuel Alito, President Bush has overruled Congress and put his foot squarely in the face of our system of justice. This is, by very definition, the primary intent of the Unitary Executive.
Speaking to the Federalist Society in 2001, Alito said, "When I was in OLC [...], we were strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, that all federal executive power is vested by the Constitution in the President. And I thought then, and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure . [...] [T]he case for a unitary executive seems, if anything, stronger today than it was in the 18th Century."
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
If you are not connecting the dots by now, let me make the point of this perfectly clear. The Unitary Executive is code-speak for a president with powers so inflated, it trumps Congress and the Judiciary in all respects. By way of the Alito doctrine, Bush's desire for unilateral power is quickly and quietly becoming a reality. This usurper seeks to unhinge our system of checks and balances and cross this longstanding legal boundary that is the very foundation of our democratic society. Now you know why Bush nominated Samuel Alito.
Silly me. Here I was thinking Republicans supported limited government. If you still adamantly back this man's actions and the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, I would say that you should assume a new title: "Nationalist." Perhaps the anti-Republican Republicans (I.E.: Neo Cons) should break away from the party who's platform is all but irrelevant to this president. You could be the United Nationalist Party. Your slogan could be something like, "My country, good or bad." I’ve been hearing that one a lot lately.
The title of this new party would be fitting; far more telling than the deceptive Republican tag. Coming from an independent Liberal point of view, I would love to see some true conservatism in the halls of power. But instead we get unrestrained spending, neglect of our national security, infringements upon our constitution, and a new political atmosphere where colleagues from across the isle no longer walk together through the storied halls of the Rayburn building, hammering out compromises in the interest of all. Today, this anti-conservative Republican amalgam movement seeks "to keep building the party until we’re hunting Democrats with dogs," in the immoral words of Republican Senator Phil Gramm.
The funny thing about Nationalists is their propensity to ignore reality. "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them," wrote George Orwell. Lately, it seems the words of the 1984 author offer the most telling truths of our time.
Stephen Webster is an Investigative Reporter and Syndicated Columnist with North Texas weekly The News Connection, a Staff Columnist with George W. Bush’s hometown weekly The Lone Star Iconoclast, and a former Contributor to The Dallas Morning News’ Science & Technology section. For more of Webster’s musings, visit The Gonzo Muckraker.
