View Full Version : The Unitary Executive

01-13-2006, 04:03 PM
hokay,,,before I go out and google it up. What is it? Jokes encouraged.

Dan McCosh
01-13-2006, 04:06 PM
It's the land that started its own church.

01-13-2006, 04:07 PM
Keith's wife making it to President of the US?

Keith Wilson
01-13-2006, 04:17 PM
No, George, that's the Unitarian Executive, and God save me from such a fate! :D

[ 01-13-2006, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

01-13-2006, 04:26 PM
I like the jokes better.

from Findlaw

The Unitary Executive Doctrine Violates the Separation of Powers

As Findlaw columnist Edward Lazarus recently showed, the President does not have unlimited executive authority, not even as Commander-in-Chief of the military. Our government was purposely created with power split between three branches, not concentrated in one.

Separation of powers, then, is not simply a talisman: It is the foundation of our system. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, No. 47, 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.
Another early American, George Nicholas, eloquently articulated the concept of "power divided" in one of his letters:

The most effectual guard which has yet been discovered against the abuse of power, is the division of it. It is our happiness to have a constitution which contains within it a sufficient limitation to the power granted by it, and also a proper division of that power. But no constitution affords any real security to liberty unless it is considered as sacred and preserved inviolate; because that security can only arise from an actual and not from a nominal limitation and division of power.
Yet it seems a nominal limitation and division of power - with real power concentrated solely in the "unitary executive" - is exactly what President Bush seeks. His signing statements make the point quite clearly, and his overt refusal to follow the laws illustrates that point: In Bush's view, there is no actual limitation or division of power; it all resides in the executive.

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.
The unitary executive doctrine conflicts with Paine's principle - one that is fundamental to our constitutional system. If Bush can ignore or evade laws, then the law is no longer king. Americans need to decide whether we are still a country of laws - and if we are, we need to decide whether a President who has determined to ignore or evade the law has not acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government.

Keith Wilson
01-13-2006, 04:45 PM
Be careful what you ask for. A president you like will not always be in power. I expect the Republicans' fondness for greater executive power will evaporate like the morning dew in Baghdad when a Democrat is elected.

Bruce Hooke
01-13-2006, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
Constitutionally imposed term limits on the executive, Norman.Which is a mighty weak substitute for a genuine separation of powers between the three branches of government...

Bruce Hooke
01-13-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
Keith and Bruce...you really should take a look at the concept, before you start waxing partisan, or philosophical.

The guys who wrote the study are a who's-who of Constitutional scholarship, and if you look at just the conclusion, on page 141, you'll see that every President has defended the unitary executive concept.Of course, pretty much every President wants more power, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to give it to them.

There is also the question of degree, and what sort of power the President is trying to lay claim to.

Osborne Russel
01-13-2006, 05:27 PM
What's the difference between a unitary executive and an elected king?

01-13-2006, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
What's the difference between a unitary executive and an elected king?A king is elected by physical force. A unitary executive is elected by an ignorant populace....

[ 01-13-2006, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: crawdaddyjim50 ]

01-13-2006, 07:43 PM
I generally speak for no one save myself. I seek to improve my knowledge on a daily basis. I see a marked degredation in the level of cognisence and reasoning of the people of this country over the last fourty years. I believe that if we expected more and tolerated less of our elected officials our country would be better off. An ignorant populace has little chance to make the correct decision if they are not presented with good information and the ability to reason.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-13-2006, 08:15 PM
Could we have a hint? Just a little hint?


"PDF? We don' need no stinkin' PDF"

01-13-2006, 08:23 PM
I haven't read Donn's PDF yet (although I hope to), but I think that there is a misunderstanding being promulgated by others.

As I have read and heard it discussed, the Unitary Executive theory increases the Presidents authority and responsibility over the powers of the Executive Branch. It isn't so much a related to Executive Power vis a vis the other branches, but related to the level of authority and accountability of the President within the Executive.

IIRC, the theory surfaced over the ability of some President to fire the someone in the FCC. (Truman?) There is a whole other issue relating to the difference between agencies that are a part of the executive (such as the EPA, FWS, APHIS, etc.) and independent agencies (FTC, CPSC, FCC, Federal Reserve).

Anyway, it isn't about increasing the power of the President outside of the executive.

01-13-2006, 08:35 PM
Jager, Cheney/GW have worked to increase Executive authority. I'll read up on this but if the unitary executive is only to concentrate authority within the executive branch to the president I sure hope that's a smart president able to analyze the issues well. Otherwise a dumb f**k president who's intellectually uncurious or disinterested would make a good puppet for someone needing plausible deniability.

from the above Findlaw article:

President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.

In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means.

[ 01-13-2006, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

Osborne Russel
01-13-2006, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
It basically serves to insulate the executive from legislative encroachment on executive branch authority, and enforces that authority over administrative operations.The latter is implied, the former is the problem.

What's the difference between "encroachment" and "checks and balances"? I thought they were supposed to encroach.

01-13-2006, 08:52 PM
They get in the way of the president protecting us. All those impediments to the president making a fast decision. You know,,like pre-emptive war with inadequate forces to secure the country because a mushroom cloud could be the smoking gun.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-alito8jan08,1,932560.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=la-headlines-politi cs

In a sense, the "unitary executive" theory states the obvious. There is only one president. But many of its Reagan-era proponents applied this theory to say independent government agencies were unconstitutional because they were not under the direct control of the president.

[ 01-13-2006, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

01-13-2006, 09:08 PM
So if the idea is to concentrate more power in the president over these "non-constitutional agencies" he could do lots more. I'm feeling safer already.

01-13-2006, 09:09 PM
Donn, you are certainly well informed on this subject. There is nothing controversial about preserving executive power, and certainly every executive has been protective of executive power. Call me names if you like, but the theory is becoming controversial because some have a well founded belief that Bush (and Reagan and Bush 41) have not been preserving executive power, but seeking to expand it and simply using this doctrine as cover.

01-13-2006, 09:24 PM
When Congress creates a regulatory agency, like the FCC, congress is delegating legislative authority to an executive branch institution, under the authority of the executive. I had occasion to study the constitutional separation of powers issues surounding congressional delegation of quasi-legislative powers to the executive branch in great depth at one point in my career.

My general impression is that despite very very well established supreme court precedents approving of these delegations of authority, they have greatly muddled the lines in the separation of powers arena. Its troublesome, just as the ridiculous expansion of commerce clause power to the federal government is troublesome if you are a principled strict constructionist.

The problem now arises from the fact that returning to original principles when it comes to analysis of presidential powers is like trying to return to pre-Nicean christian theology, it no longer works in the present state of separation of powers doctrine.

Over the years, congress has delegated an enormous amount of power to executive branch institutions. It seems to me that in many instances, the current "unitary executive" theory is trying to assert that these delegated powers are in fact inherent executive powers.

In any event, its using an analysis appropriate to the appples of original intent vis a vis separation of powers in a world in which the original separation of powers doctrine has been transmogrified into oranges.

Even the "commander in chief" powers have expanded greatly, the original premise is we would not always have a standing army of any size, and in any event, the constitution explicitly grants to congress the authority to promulgate laws and rules governing the military, so clearly presidential authority as commander in chief is still subject to the checks a balances of congressional power.

01-13-2006, 09:31 PM
You say you are probably more well-informed than I am, Donn, but your conclusion as to this probability is based on what factual knowledge? Other than simply plucking it out of your ass? The fact that I am lawyer who has been involved in litigation regarding separation of powers doctrine and have argued some of these principles in court, where my arguments are subject to scrutiny and rebuttal and eventually adjudicated by an arbiter, would perhaps be relevant to your consideration of the probability of your being so mmuch more well informed?

I did not insult you, I offered a polite observation that there is reasonable ground for debate on the subject, I did not opine that I am right or you are wrong, simply that intelligent and well informed people can disagree.

You, as always, simply assert that anyone who disagrees, or even asserts that disagreement is reasonable, is ignorant and ill-informed. Its apparent that your definition of "shooting your mouth off" is "saying anything I disagree with." Thats why you are a horses ass, in the end.

Thanks for your offer to educate me, but when I want to know the answers to a question within my field of expertise, I think I would be beter advised to consult the traditional sources, I doubt the courts would be swayed by my citing to the world according to Donn.

[ 01-13-2006, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: PatCox ]

01-13-2006, 09:39 PM
There is the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, and then there are the newspaper editorials penned by Hamilton during the debate over what the Constitution should say. Studying the federalist papers is useful in gaining knowledge of one side of the debate that eventually produced the constitution, but it is not authoritative as to constitutional intent.

01-13-2006, 09:40 PM
I assume that you feel entitled to roll on the floor laughing because while I have never been a supreme court justice, you have? ROTFLMAO.

01-13-2006, 10:01 PM
Guys, that was worth the price of admission. Enjoying my apples and oranges too.

01-13-2006, 11:34 PM
I am no more enlightened that I was before I read these sterling exchanges preceding.

O.K. Unitary executive says, "The buck stops here", both for authority and accountability. But, as Pat hinted at, what about those organizations that are created and regulated by legislation (and hence, are extensions of Congressional power)?

What is the theory about Congress creating an organization and imbuing it with power to regulate. Nominally, it belongs to the executive. But, what is the degree of executive power over such an organization, and what does the theory of the "Unitary Executive" say about it.

As I recall from the Alito hearings, Alito seemed to say that if Congress had established rules regarding the operation (such as rules for the appointment of FCC commissioners) then those rules applied (Constitutionally speaking). If there were no rules, then the President had authority over the organization.

Does the Unitary Executive theory conflict with this is any way, conform with this, or simply has no opinion on this issue?

01-13-2006, 11:55 PM
Jager, you seem to be approaching this with an open mind. I will offer this observation to you. There are many who try to make it an ideological struggle, those who will argue that the constitution (or Madison or Hamilton) approves only of their viewpoint, and therefore, any who disagree is "WRONG" in a deep and un-american way.

I think it more pragmatically. We now have one-party control; thus the checks and balances are weaker, and thus, naturally, a president seeking more power (and what politician of any persuasion in any office did not have a major if not primary goal of seeking more power) is able to assert more power, because no other branch of government is opposed to him. Of course there must be some ideological, intellectual "cover" for this action, so the think tanks and the organizations like the federalist society, from their ivory towers, make their arguments that this is what the founders intended and therefore anyone opposing it is unamerican and blah blah blah.

And the muddied state of separation of powers doctrine in light of widespread delegation of congressional authority, and of congresional intrusion in executive authority (independant prosecutor laws, for example) allows the gray area in which the ideologues operate.

But in the end, it will change as power shifts, and when there is divided government again, the arguments will all change, in accordance with the relative power of those making the arguments.

Its the way it is and always will be. Far greater shifts in the understanding of the proper sturcture of our government have occurred in the past, as for example, the enormous shift between Jefferson and Jackson.

So it goes.

01-13-2006, 11:56 PM
The dominant branch of government is the legislative. There is vitually nothing the executive or the judicial branches can do that Congress can't overturn.

01-14-2006, 12:05 AM
Jager, I don't know about rules but Alito did say that the president was bound by laws passed by Congress. What I find disturbing are the presidential signing statements that seem to say "this is what I think the bill means, but if I need to do something I'm going to interpret it as I see fit" regardless what the rules are.

It's not "the buck stops here" as it is "it's easier to ask for forgivness than permission". Except here Cheney/GW won't be asking for forgiveness or permission. It'll be Gonzales et al justifying the action.

01-14-2006, 12:13 AM
Pat & Meer:

As I get older I have learned more and more that things are not the immediate problems that I took them to be in my youth. I now subscribe to the motto of Calvin Coolidge (I think) who said that, "If you see ten troubles coming down the road towards you, nine of them will run off into the ditch before they reach you."

O.K., what does that B.S. mean? It means I have come to possess a growing faith in the processes of our Republic, and ultimately in the American public. FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Bush. America will survive them all. Presidents can advance all types of theories for what they wish to do, and ultimately the American people will somehow find a way to preserve the Republic. We always seem to find our center ground, and continue the "Grand Experiment". We survived the Civil War, we can survive anything.

I'm not happy with many of the decisions of the Republicans. (As I've said on previous posts - my spectrum runs more from libertarian to authoritarian, and I dislike either party tending to the authoritarian side). But, I'm still confident of the ability of our system to correct the course of the nation.

BTW, Meer, I disagree that the legislature can overturn anything. It is bound by Judicial interpretation of the Constitution, and the glory of judicial power is that it is essentially a negative power. It can restrain the Congress and Executive, but it can not (or at least, should not) enable.

The ultimate law of the land is the Constitution. Processes for amendments:

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
A pretty high hurdle for power mad demogogues to overcome.

As I keep realizing, "Is America a great country, or what!"

01-14-2006, 12:19 AM
Do you disagree that Congress could not stop the Iraq War tomorrow (for instance)? The power of the purse.

Ultimately, the presidential sky yacht flies at the pleasure of Congress.

Even constitutional matters can be modifyed through the legislative process (congress + 2/3 state legislatures).

01-14-2006, 12:24 AM
Well, let's just say that Congress is pretty darn powerful. If they cut the money, things would stop pretty darn soon.

Seem to remember this coming up in the Alito hearings, about "Congressional Riders" - specific legislation to allow or restrict funding of specific issues.

How about I say this - within the realm of what is allowed by the Constitution - Congress shall reign supreme. I agree with that. (As it should be - since Congress represents the will of the people).

01-14-2006, 12:59 AM
Jager, when you said:
"O.K., what does that B.S. mean? It means I have come to possess a growing faith in the processes of our Republic, and ultimately in the American public. FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Bush. America will survive them all. Presidents can advance all types of theories for what they wish to do, and ultimately the American people will somehow find a way to preserve the Republic. We always seem to find our center ground, and continue the "Grand Experiment". We survived the Civil War, we can survive anything."

That was almost exactly what I meant. The BS is just the current justification for the current swing of the pendulum.

martin schulz
01-14-2006, 05:25 AM
Unitary Executive = Dictator?

01-14-2006, 05:34 AM
I'm not the scholar some here are, but wouldn't the modern test have been when FDR attempted to expand, that's right, EXPAND not just pack, the Supreme Court, and Congress saying no? Forgive me if that's been covered, I admit to skimming parts of this.

The '30s depression followed by WWII changed the executive, drove it to greater power. At times the nation needs an FDR. A voice and a power to hold it together.

I would love to see it shrink a bit. The same for everything at the federal level.

Keep spending the way the Republican Congress and this president have been spending and I might get that wish, by default.

[ 01-14-2006, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

01-14-2006, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
...it also appears that his party controls all three branches of government.

Partisanship aside, do you believe that that is a good thing? One-party rule, and the lack of an effective opposition in any branch of government?

01-14-2006, 06:20 AM
Partisanship aside, do you believe that that is a good thing? One-party rule, and the lack of an effective opposition in any branch of government?

Oh, I don't think Donn is really calling for that. He loves this country, at least as much as you do, George. He's just gloating a bit.

Let him, the strange power of the people is likely to serve a wake up call this November. The Abramhoff scandal is going to be "In the news" come November.

That we are liable to get a similarly corrupt crop of Democrats in the next election is what bothers me. They'll be twisted in a different direction, but corrupt just the same.

As long as big money rules our elections, and men and women candidates are willing participants, we'll get the government we deserve.

Where's the Mr. Smiths?

01-14-2006, 08:56 AM
Fitzgerald investigation will probably pull Rove away from his management of the hurricane reconstruction effort,,isn't that what GW tasked him with after Brown left?,,or didn't GW say the magic of the private sector would handle the reconstruction with minimal federal influence.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-14-2006, 11:06 AM
The "Unitary Executive" is a nice theory but it must mesh with the concept of "three equal branches of government" and the that of "checks and balances" which are settled law.
In the end, if the legislature and the judiciary cave in to this scheme they are cutting their own throats.
No matter how many smart guys buy into the "unitary exec." or any other off-brand governmental concept, if they aren't members of the legislature or the judiciary they won't have much effect on the outcome of this game.
Right wingers, like Bob Barr, are not going to let the president and his goons kick down the door to the US Congress. And the Supreme Court with it's predominantly right wing membership is not going to lay down for this " extra-constitutional putsch" either.
So all of your who are taken with this PDF can have it tattooed on your chest or can stick it in your cheek pouches. It ain't going to happen unless the Pres. brings home the troops and has them surround the other two branches of government.


[ 01-14-2006, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Cuyahoga Chuck ]

01-14-2006, 11:40 AM
Speaking of Homeland Security anyone see the Robert DeNiro skit on SNL?

Billy Bones
01-14-2006, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by George.:
...and the lack of an effective opposition in any branch of government?Yeah, and whose fault is that? I'm a republican because in my lifetime it's been the lesser of two evils. Almost all my pet issues are traditionally championed by the dems. Where are they now? Behind and getting behinder.

As I said elsewhere this am, mmmmmmkay, you try. I'd love a stalwart and responsible democratic party but at this rate none of us will live to see such a thing.

01-14-2006, 11:57 AM
If you really want to get into it look at Jackson and his attempt to defeat a central bank. That lasted about a hundred years. And then there's Lincoln.

Get used to it, and fight it. There's a false supposition about, that this is a done deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[ 01-14-2006, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-14-2006, 01:12 PM
Keep spouting that blather, Donn. Can you say Federalist 70 a hundred times over real fast?
There ain't nothing in Federalist 70 that talks about dragging members of the executive branch in front of congressional committees with TV lights blazing as I recall. It could happen. Just because the congress has been supine on previous occasions doean't mean they will continue to do it forever. The "unitary exec." if pushed far enough could lead to a constitutional crises and even if we dig up Al Hamilton and dug the bullet from his breast he won't be able to effect what the congess or the courts might do if they are threatened by the executive.
What you are promoting is the result of a lot of elbow jabbing by various presidents that has gone unchecked but which could be countered by one timely court decision.
So, you can swear a blood oath to George Bush if you like and even carry one of those daggers that says "mein ehre ist treu" but your "new" brand of democracy is not going to happen without a civil war.


Cuyahoga Chuck
01-14-2006, 01:19 PM
Are there fish in the Great South Bay?

01-14-2006, 01:22 PM
time for a rasberry smiley,,

01-14-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
Yes, Pat, I am well informed on this subject. Probably a good deal more informed than you are. I've researched it for quite some time.


01-14-2006, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Donn:

Member # 1938

Posts: 23129

Posts with substance: 18

Posts advocating or gloating about violence, torture, or one-party rule: 19736

Posts without ad hominem attacks: 2

01-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
...time to "reconsider the existence" of independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, and to "take action to bring them back within the Executive Branch."

Don't forget the Federal Reserve. Getting rid of an independent Central Bank is an essential step towards devolving into a banana republic - or a banana dictatorship, as current right-wing taste seems to favour...

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-14-2006, 03:42 PM
Positing that right-wing Supreme Court justices will invariably side with a powergrabbing right- wing president jumps over the fact that the justices are their own persons, have their own branch of government to protect and their own historical legacy to pass on. And what justice wants to be seen by his fellows as a lap dog for a different branch of government?
Right-wing acholytes may find that their grip on the reins are not as tight as it appears at casual glance. At the top of this right-wing power structure are people who have power of their own who will use it to thwart any modification of the scheme the framers had intended. It's hard for my liberal brain to recall the term but it's called "original something-or-other".
With due deference to Mr. Parry, whoever he may be, we can wonder if even poor knee-jerking Clarence Thomas, would be so cuckold as to let Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld kick the legislative and judicial branches in the crotch.
The rubric that thus and so was said long ago and therefore is forever true may work in bible studies but it is not an efficatious rule in modern politics. What certain justices did or said back in their lickspittle days may just be a chapter in their climb to the top and not illustrative of what is in their hearts today.


"Fish or cut bait?"

[ 01-14-2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Cuyahoga Chuck ]

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-14-2006, 04:52 PM
My ignorance of Robert Parry must be excused. The Jesuits didn't seem to dote on him.
What your trying to pull is called "an appeal to higher authority". It's kind of usless unless we all agree that your guy is an authority we can all be comfortable with.
Personally, unless a mjority of the Supreme Court and the US Congress find your guy's arguments compelling all his right-wing opining may be for naught.


"Not that Robert Parry, the other one."

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-14-2006, 10:33 PM
On the previous Parry statements I stand by what I said. Parry may be much smarter than me but he's seems to be taking a very short view, i.e. "they did it before and they will do it again". I feel history will not be kind to a justice who sells out his own branch of government. In "Marbury" the court stuck it's finger in the presidents eye and that's the way it's been for 200+ years. Some of this current crew may just do it again for a little notoriety.
In regards Parry's second comment; that view was what most knowledgeable commentators were saying on the TV news. Yes, the senators on the committee were long winded and venal. No, there's no guarantee Bush will get a jurist who will fulfill all his presidential desires. Beyond saying that, he may well get the guy he chose but, not much beyond that is assured at the moment.
Challenges to the legality of those Bush policies haven't even hit the court yet. And in the interim there is a lot of political activity to play out. And d some that is legal. So, celebrate if you must but don't put your head in the oven if a few things go sour for the Pres. He has a way of winning battles and losing wars.


01-15-2006, 07:47 AM
Is the theory of the unitary executive like "legislating from the bench"? Except here it's legislating from the executive.

The signing statements don't sound very straight up. "ok,,but you didn't say I couldn't take the car on the weekends",,or "ok, I'll authorize torture only if it's like in that Nicholas Cage movie and I'll feel really bad afterwards"

01-15-2006, 08:04 AM
OKAY...here is the bottom line....Everyone wants someone on the bench who is qualified....Everyone seems to be unhappy with the previous choices because their qualifications do not jibe with their perceptions or ideals...or they just didn't have the nec. qualifications
GW nominated a woman who had no qualifactions...and look what happened...Now he has nominated someone who tech. is qualified...and the roar can be heard throughout Washington, DC....
No one can win this......If anyone nominated to be on the bench has any qualifications for the job....he will be shot down by someone regardless...as his qualifactions to do not meet their perceptions.
Show me someone who would make every group happy...This is bloody impossible....

anyone who is qualified...has bagage....that's life.

secondly...there has been a lot of banter about Alito's feelings on executive power....If a Dem. becomes president in 2008...well, his support...if the statement is true....or leaning towards executive power would benefit the dems....So...what is the issue here.?

[ 01-15-2006, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

01-15-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
Read the PDF link I posted, crawfish. Every President we've elected has protected this doctrine.It is in his best interest to do so. It is not in the populaces best interest. He gets it through an ignorant(uneducated) voter. This country still has a large percentage of ignorant voters. I go by Jim, but as there are literally millions of us by that name the bbs would not let me use it, so I had to find a unique name. But thank you for reinforcing my perception of you..

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-15-2006, 12:28 PM

01-15-2006, 01:03 PM
uh,,that's ridicule reality,,it doesn't apply to objective reality.