As an aside and out of curiosity what is the point of a statute that has no penalties for breaking it? Seems a waste of time to even bother if it amounts to nothing more than a, “We really think people should abide by this rule but do whatever you want,” thing.
You know, this whole “unitary executive” thingy and the previously unrealized range of Presidential power may have its uses, given recent political developments on the electoral front. If the Goddess shall cease to avert Her eyes…
Even if Obama doesn’t get elected, I still find myself wondering why they thought they would have their boy in office forever. “Unlimited power! What’s the worst that could happen? We’ll control that office forever. What is there to worry about?”
Checks and balances work both ways, you dumbasses.
-Joe
OK, I’m stupid. What are you guys driving at?
In my defense, I was drunk the day they taught that.
I’m pretty sure they’re saying that the GOP’s concerted effort to establish the executive as essentially an emperor with unlimited power may bite back if they fail to hold the White House.
Oh, just the very general then. I see. I thought they were referring to something more specific.
Well, in some ways I was. Think about how cream-their-jeans happy plenty of Righties (some on this very board, completely willing to excuse absolutely anything) were at the thought of a basically unchecked executive. Think about all those in the Congress who happily backed such moves. Think of all the Quislings/Goodlings in the various departments who were willing to do anything to advance such ideas. “It’s our guy, so it’ll all be okay.”
Ask yourself why they never seemed to be concerned with the idea of President Hillary Clinton having that same power.
-Joe
Pretty much, yeah. The theme of the “unitary executive” is a bit of sophistry intended to supply a pretense to an intellectual and/or Constitutional veneer over a raw power grab. Similar to the laughable notion that “in time of war” the executive branch becomes preminent and supercedes any “checks and balances” that might otherwise apply.
Of course, this means President for Life Obama has the authority to round up all their guns. And order Eagle Scouts into gay marriages.
I wonder if the Unitary Executive will vanish into the closet for the next couple terms if Obama wins.
-Joe
I’m hoping the Unitary Executive will disappear for all time whoever gets in to the White House this time, although I have little hope of it with a Republican administration! There must be some way that Congress, the Supremes, or the White House itself can act in order to negate this idea the the Presidency is, whether in time of war (particularly voluntary war not taking place on US soil) or peace, is above the law, since apparently the Constitution as written apparently isn’t good enough.
Eta: Or is it simply a matter of the Good Guys will refrain from abusing power and the Bad Guys won’t? Because that’s pretty pathetic.
Considering that it has been invoked by presidents such as Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR, I doubt very much that it will “vanish into the closet”. Nor will (gasp!) signing statements.
Now, if you meant that Bush’s particular interpretation of the unitary executive, you will probably be right.
The irony is that all of this goes back to the “Gore is a liar” meme that won Bush the election in 2000.
I’m still none-the-wiser. Is it, or is it not, a criminal offence to engage the security services, within the United States, in manipulating public opinion? If not, why not (barring the glib answer, that nobody has bothered to write a law criminalising it)? Engaging the CIA in writing fake letters, to win public support over for a war, seems to be an incredibly bad idea, no?
Looks like it is against the law - but that seems to be an administrative sort of thing spelling out what people in the government can or cannot legally do, at least in the sections cited. There weren’t criminal or civil penalties mentioned.
And so, if they’re very unlucky, someone shall administer a Very Stern Talking To Them.
Just as a reminder, the U.S. Code is huge and has everything from the charter for the VFW to the Flag Code. It also includes the death penalty for various federal offenses. These would obviously be in a different part of the code.
So what you’re saying is that there are places where, say, twenty year penalties are specified for, say, squashing a bug and not filling out the proper forms in triplicate, but no one thought to mention penalties for forging foreign documents to bolster political support for a war? Or to suppressing intelligence in order to get political support to get that war in the first place?
Sorry, twenty year sentences, not penalties.