# The Bush Administration and the "unitary executive" theory **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552 "2006-01-11T20:46:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/1 "2006-01-11T20:46:50Z")
This has come up in connection with the Alito confirmation hearing – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353296](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353296) – but I think it’s an important enough issue to warrant separate debate in its own thread. All presidents push for an expansive interpretation of their own constitutional powers vis-a-vis the other branches, of course. But the Bush Administration appears determined, beyond all precedent, to push that just as far as it will go, citing a “unitary executive” theory of presidential power. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary\_Executive:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive:) > [@](#): > > The theory of the unitary executive spans a range of views. At one end it says that the President, i.e. the unitary executive, has the power to appoint, direct and remove executive officers. He also has the power to interpret the law as it applies to the executive. At the other end of the spectrum it has a very strong President with a Congress and Judiciary that give great deference to the President. > > President Bush has applied the theory of the unitary executive in many of his decisions. For instance, in his statement announcing his signing H.R. 1646, the “Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003,” President Bush wrote: > The executive branch shall construe as advisory the provisions of the Act, including sections 408, 616, 621, 633, and 1343(b), that purport to direct or burden the conduct of negotiations by the executive branch with foreign governments, international organizations, or other entities abroad or which purport to direct executive branch officials to use the U.S. voice and vote in international organizations to achieve specified foreign policy objectives. Such provisions, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, would impermissibly interfere with the President’s constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs, participate in international negotiations, and supervise the unitary executive branch. > In effect, Bush stated that when it comes to the executive branch a law means what the President says it means, not what the Congress or the Judiciary say it means. A recent paper by political science professor Christopher Kelley – [http://www.cageprisoners.com/downloads/kelleypaper.pdf](http://www.cageprisoners.com/downloads/kelleypaper.pdf) (PDF file) – traces the history of the “unitary executive” theory back to the Reagan Administration, but points out that it has remained very obscure up to now and that Bush is the first to specifically refer to it (95 times!) in support of his actions. In particular, it has been cited to justify Bush’s selective nonapplication of the Geneva Conventions to some “unlawful combatant” detainees. See [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=unitary+executive](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=unitary+executive) The “unitary executive” also appears to underly the Administration’s position that courts should give presidential “signing statements” on legislation interpretive weight, alongside Congressional committee reports, as part of the statute’s “legislative history.” See this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667) It also might relate to the theory, recently floated by William Kristol and Gary Schnitt in _The Weekly Standard,_ that the Framers intended the president to wield “extralegal but constitutional powers” (mainly in the national-security sphere). See this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350684](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350684) Alito, for his part, appears to be firmly committed to a “unitary executive” view of the president’s powers, based on statements he made in November 2000: [http://online.wsj.com/article\_email/SB113642811283938270-lMyQjAxMDE2MzA2NDQwMjQ4Wj.html](http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB113642811283938270-lMyQjAxMDE2MzA2NDQwMjQ4Wj.html) Obviously we have a “unitary executive” system in that the president, as opposed to a collegial Cabinet, is clearly the sole executive decision-maker. But just how far do his constitutional powers extend? ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/2 "2006-01-11T20:56:15Z")
To my liberal eyes, the president saying “The executive branch shall construe as advisory the provisions of the Act” is entirely contrary to the oath of office to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States. " Most other liberals would say the same, I’d wager. But where are conservatives in this? Surely executive usurpation is not a conservative doctrine? All right, **Bricker** , step up to plate here. Inquiring liberal minds want to know. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/3 "2006-01-11T21:01:46Z")
Damn, I misquoted. The actual oath is to " faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," which is a little more ambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/4 "2006-01-11T21:05:14Z")
Okay, at the risk of turning into a one-man band, here is what I was getting at: Section 3 of Article 2 of the Constitution says: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” [Constitution](http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/5 "2006-01-11T22:43:14Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > Surely executive usurpation is not a conservative doctrine? . . . Depends, doesn’t it, on whether the executive’s initials are GWB or FDR? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/6 "2006-01-11T22:48:10Z")
What he is saying is “I should be King.”, the irony of someone receiving the position through elected office, and then putting themselves up as a Monarch is pretty rich. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/7 "2006-01-12T01:30:26Z")
I think the theory is accurate within well-defined limits. The three branches of Government are set up as checks and balances against each other. They each have clearly defined roles. As far as Congress or the Supreme Court attempting to pass laws or legislation that attempts to circumvent the executive branch’s Constitutional powers the President can feel free to ignore them since the athority he derives from the Constitution is higher. It works the other way, as well. The President cannot dissolve Congress or impede upon the powers of the other Branches. Of course, there will always be give and take and where the lines are drawn will be subject to dispute and change. That’s why we have three branches. The majority rules and that’s the way the checks and balances are supposed to work. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/8 "2006-01-12T03:04:12Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > That’s why we have three branches. The majority rules . . . That is the most thoroughly confused interpretation of American constitutional law I have ever encountered. I am in awe. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/9 "2006-01-12T14:45:46Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > As far as Congress or the Supreme Court attempting to pass laws or legislation that attempts to circumvent the executive branch’s Constitutional powers the President can feel free to ignore them since the athority he derives from the Constitution is higher. What constitutional powers are you referring to here? Can you cite the relevant Constitutional text? And I wasn’t aware that the Supreme Court passed laws. Maybe you can cite me the text for that as well. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/10 "2006-01-12T15:11:28Z")
While the phrase “unitary executive” is new to me (I’ve got some reading to do), the assertion cited by **BrainGlutton** is consistent with the Constitution and has been used in the past. The president is asserting a constitutional power under Article II, Section 2 to conduct foreign relations, specifically to negotiate. When Congress passes a law that, in part, places an unconstitutional limitation of a presidential power enumerated in the constitution, the president issues a statement like this to state his intention to exercise his power in accordance with the constitution, not in accordance with the law in question. It is a presidential determination of the constitutionality of a law as it applies to the presidency. I believe that this has happened lots of times over many years. Here’s the relevant text from the constitution: > [@](#): > > He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties… It doesn’t say that he has the power to make treaties subject to directions issued by congress. Of course, the check on this power is the adice and consent aspect. He can negotiate freely, but the senate still has to approve it. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/11 "2006-01-12T16:22:40Z")
I would say that the Constitutional power to make treaties is not the same as the “constitutional authorit[y] to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs,” as the White House has alleged. Also, note that the White House has invoked the unitary executive theory [95 times](http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/archive/Unitary%20Executive/kelly_unit_exec_and_bush.pdf), and most of those instances have nothing to do with national security or foreign affairs. It’s ironic to me that the same party and people that complain about judicial activism have no complaint about a form of executive activism that relies on stretching the meaning of the Constitution as much or possibly more than judicial activists are claimed to do. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/12 "2006-01-12T16:44:15Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > I would say that the Constitutional power to make treaties is not the same as the “constitutional authorit[y] to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs,” as the White House has alleged. Also, note that the White House has invoked the unitary executive theory [95 times](http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/archive/Unitary%20Executive/kelly_unit_exec_and_bush.pdf), and most of those instances have nothing to do with national security or foreign affairs. > > It’s ironic to me that the same party and people that complain about judicial activism have no complaint about a form of executive activism that relies on stretching the meaning of the Constitution as much or possibly more than judicial activists are claimed to do. I’m pretty sure that the clause I cited along with the general executive power have long been construed to mean that the president has the power to conduct foreign policy. In, addition, I did not intend to imply that the foreign policy area was the only one in which the president might properly declare a portion of a law to be “construed as advisory.” The PDF that you linked to mentions others. I agree with you about “executive activism” coming from a president who decries judicial activism. I don’t think Bush is doing that if he’s attempting to insert a disclamer against what he views as legislative encroachment on his powers; I do thi nk he’s doing that if he tries to otherwise add to or subtract from a law for other purposes. I don’t think his efforts in the latter situatiion will have much effect. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/13 "2006-01-14T05:12:29Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What he is saying is “I should be King.”, the irony of someone receiving the position through elected office, and then putting themselves up as a Monarch is pretty rich. > > Erek What? Worked for Napoleon, didn’t it? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sequent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Sequent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sequent)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/14 "2006-01-15T03:26:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What? Worked for Napoleon, didn’t it? 🙂 Napoleon took the crown out of the Pope’s hands and put it on his own head; Dubya got his crown directly from Jesus. In the name of the Father, the Son, and Unitary Executive. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/15 "2006-01-15T09:18:35Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > I would say that the Constitutional power to make treaties is not the same as the “constitutional authorit[y] to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs,” as the White House has alleged. The White House would probably agree with you. The “constitutional authorit[y] to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs” is not the same as the treaty power. The constitutional authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs is part of the “executive Power.” Article II, section 1 says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The “executive Power” was understood by the Framers to refer to the power to conduct foreign affairs. As stated by Thomas Jefferson in 1790 (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > The constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, lodging each with a distinct magistracy . . . . It has declared that the Executive powers shall be vested in the President, submitting special articles of it to a negative by the Senate . . . . _The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether_; it belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly . . . . ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/16 "2006-01-15T09:28:42Z")
**Brainglutton** , it appears that you’ve either got a typo in your quote from Wikipedia, or Wikipedia has changed their entry on the unified executive theory. You said that Wikipedia states: > [@](#): > > In effect, Bush stated that when it comes to the executive branch a law means what the President says it means, not what the Congress or the Judiciary say it means. Wikipedia actually says (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > In effect, Bush stated that when it comes to _administering_ the executive branch, a law means what the President says it means, not what the Congress says it means. This word is important because it encapsulates the entire Bush admin’s argument on the law you’ve quoted. (Note that the Wikipedia entry also leaves out the implication that the Bush admin believes they can ignore what the Judiciary says a law means.) The President doesn’t have to follow the Legislature’s directions on how the President should conduct foreign policy. That’s because the Constitution granted this power to the President, and not the Legislature. Just as the Courts can’t pass their own laws because that would infringe on the powers given to the Legislature, the Legislature can’t direct the President on how to conduct foreign relations because that would infringe on a power given to the Executive. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But the Bush Administration appears determined, beyond all precedent, to push that just as far as it will go, citing a “unitary executive” theory of presidential power. > … > A recent paper by political science professor Christopher Kelley – [http://www.cageprisoners.com/downloads/kelleypaper.pdf](http://www.cageprisoners.com/downloads/kelleypaper.pdf) (PDF file) – traces the history of the “unitary executive” theory back to the Reagan Administration, but points out that it has remained very obscure up to now and that Bush is the first to specifically refer to it (95 times!) in support of his actions. Your Wikipedia cite also provides cites to two other articles tracing the unitary executive theory to well before Reagan. Specifically, the articles detail instances of the unitary executive theory from [1889-1945](http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=nwwps), and [1945-2001](http://law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/pubs/yoo-unitaryexecinmodernera.pdf). To quote the abstract from the former article: > [@](#): > > The record reveals that these Presidents during this period [1889-1945] consistently defended the unitariness of the executive branch to a degree sufficient to keep the issue from being foreclosed by history. Accordingly, there seems to be some historical evidence of the theory since long, long before Reagan and Bush. > [@Brainglutton](#): > > In particular, it has been cited to justify Bush’s selective nonapplication of the Geneva Conventions to some “unlawful combatant” detainees. See [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=unitary+executive](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=unitary+executive) Your cite goes to a google search for unitary executive. Could you be more specific? > [@Brainglutton](#): > > The “unitary executive” also appears to underly the Administration’s position that courts should give presidential “signing statements” on legislation interpretive weight, alongside Congressional committee reports, as part of the statute’s “legislative history.” See this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667) Once again, your Wikipedai cite either appears to have changed, or you’ve left something relevant out of your quote. The sentence after your quote says: > [@](#): > > It is not unusual for a president to release such a signing statement when he has concern as to how a bill he is signing into law will be interpreted in later court cases. It’s not just the Bush administration that’s utilized “signing statements” to guide judicial interpretation. That practice has a long history, which has apparently been accepted by the judiciary. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/17 "2006-01-15T18:37:32Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > **Brainglutton** , it appears that you’ve either got a typo in your quote from Wikipedia, or Wikipedia has changed their entry on the unified executive theory. You said that Wikipedia states:Wikipedia actually says (emphasis added):This word is important because it encapsulates the entire Bush admin’s argument on the law you’ve quoted. (Note that the Wikipedia entry also leaves out the implication that the Bush admin believes they can ignore what the Judiciary says a law means.) I can tell you only that, in the OP, I cut-and-pasted the text verbatim as it appeared on that day. Of course, this is the Wikipedia, which **anyone** can edit. So, while it’s a pretty reliable source on, say, scientific questions, any article on any politically controversial topic is liable to change from day to day. In fact, in the current climate I would expect a “The neutrality of this article is disputed” disclaimer above the article, but apparently it hasn’t reached that point yet. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Your cite goes to a google search for unitary executive. Could you be more specific? Sorry. This is the link I meant to post there: [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive\_Branch\_Decide\_0923.html](http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive_Branch_Decide_0923.html) > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > It’s not just the Bush administration that’s utilized “signing statements” to guide judicial interpretation. That practice has a long history, which has apparently been accepted by the judiciary. It has **not** been accepted by the judiciary. One Supreme Court decision in 1946 made reference to a signing statement of FDR as an element of the “legislative history” of the statute under review, although that does not seem to have been a dispositive factor; and the doctrine has lain dormant since then. Which might change, if Alito, who pushed the idea when he worked for the Reagan Administration, gets confirmed to the SC. See discussion in this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353667) ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/18 "2006-01-15T22:16:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It has **not** been accepted by the judiciary. One Supreme Court decision in 1946 made reference to a signing statement of FDR as an element of the “legislative history” of the statute under review, although that does not seem to have been a dispositive factor; and the doctrine has lain dormant since then. This is not true. _See, e.g., United States v. Story_, 891 F.2d 988, 994 (2d Cir. 1989) (Newman, J.) (“though in some circumstances there is room for doubt as to the weight to be accorded a presidential signing statement in illuminating congressional intent, . . . President Reagan’s views are significant here because the Executive Branch participated in the negotiation of the compromise legislation.”); _Berry v. Dep’t of Justice_, 733 F.2d 1343, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing President Johnson’s signing statement on goals of Freedom of Information Act); _Clifton D. Mayhew, Inc. v. Wirtz_, 413 F.2d 658, 661-62 (4th Cir. 1969) (relying on President Truman’s description in signing statement of proper legal standard to be used in Portal-to-Portal Act). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/19 "2006-01-16T00:51:51Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I think the theory is accurate within well-defined limits. The three branches of Government are set up as checks and balances against each other. They each have clearly defined roles. > > As far as Congress or the Supreme Court attempting to pass laws or legislation that attempts to circumvent the executive branch’s Constitutional powers the President can feel free to ignore them since the athority he derives from the Constitution is higher. Do you feel then that the President has unlimited power to torture others? That his ability to have people tortured is a Constitutionally protected executive privilege? Do you feel that this viewpoint is consistent with conservative philosophy generally? > [@](#): > > It works the other way, as well. The President cannot dissolve Congress or impede upon the powers of the other Branches. Could the President, in your view, order individual Congressmen to be tortured? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2006, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552/20 "2006-01-16T00:55:16Z")
> [@](#): > > **Scylla** : As far as Congress or the Supreme Court attempting to pass laws or legislation that attempts to circumvent the executive branch’s Constitutional powers the President can feel free to ignore them since the athority he derives from the Constitution is higher. Are you saying that any President is free to interpret the Constitution as she or he believes? If that is not what you are saying, please explain the difference. Does anyone here believe that Bush resurrected the concept of the Unitary President on his own? If not, who is likely to have encouraged his thinking in this direction? Did Bush the Elder and Clinton utilize the concept? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-and-the-unitary-executive-theory/339552.md?page=2)