Most people never knew about the theory in the first place. It’s another example of the asymmetric level of general political knowledge between message boards that are obsessed with the topic versus the public at large, many of whom care so little they don’t even bother to vote.
Either that or the Republicans have just become even worse obstructionists than ever and it has nothing to do with race. For the record, I think Republicans are deeply racist to their very core having become the “Southern Strategy” and the obstructionism is caused by that racism.
Which particular current Republicans in Congress made a big deal about the UET during GWB’s presidency?
through signing statements.
I’m discouraged that torture gained a level of acceptability during the Bush regime, and I’m unhappy that Obama is killing American citizens with drones.
But I guess we have (had?) a war going on.
I liked Carter’s sweaters and FDR’s fireside chats.
Well, not if it was THEIR black man or white woman.
Bingo! Similar to what he said about the constitutionality of initiating military action without congressional consent. I’m not an Obama hater, but as with most politicians, what he does is based more on the outcomes he wants than on the principles he espoused prior to office.
I can’t speak for conservatives or liberals, being both and neither, but I’m in your camp that the same rules should apply. I suspect that Obama went about this the wrong way, but then, I’m not on his speed dial, and he might have more in mind than merely addressing an immigration issue.
I admit I am amused by the Republicans whining that they only needed one more term to actually get something done. Amused, but not surprised.
In any case, it’s a 2-year statement. What happens after that will depend on whoever gets elected. It’s really not worth the political hay either side is making. But making political hay is what politicians do, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
What Constitutional roll are they not performing? The 111th - 113th Congress considered over 35,000 pieces of legislation of which about 850 eventually became laws. At least four treaties have been ratified by the Senate. According to this, 290 judges have been confirmed.
So please tell us which constitutional mandate Congress is not fullfillling along with a reference to the Article, Section and Clause.
Where does the constitution say that Congress must pass any legislation, much less this particular legislation? And where does the Constitution give the executive the power to “pick up the slack”? Where does the constitution put any time limit on the passage of legislation?
Sorry, but you’re trying to couch this in constitutional terms, but there is nothing in the constitution that supports your argument.
The Constitution is a clear and unambiguous framework that, somehow, conservatives consistently misunderstand. Something of a mystery in that,
Are you sure **Buck Godot **is a conservative?
What part are they misunderstanding? Be specific.
I believe his comment was a dig at “Constitutional constructionist” conservatives, a la Antonin Scalia.
The Constitution is a clear and unambiguous framework that, somehow, liberals consistently misunderstand. Something of a mystery in that,
Yup, this is is still drivel.
I’m quite confident elucidator can speak for himself. But if you’re right, then… cool story, bro!
If he does, will it just be something like, “I interpret the Constitution that the government needs to do what I want it to do.”? Because invariably that how these posts always turn out if the person bothers to answer them. We’re still waiting for Buck Godot to back up his point.
Okay. Sorry for trying to clear up the confusion.
I see Buck Godot and elucidator have failed to return
Theory schmeory.
Think like an economist for a couple of minutes. The GOP as an enterprise relies on selling (both metaphorically and literally) a political position. The unitary executive theory does not offer any value to a Congressman nor a party of Congressmen. It was temporarily useful to explain not impeaching their comrade for war crimes, but it’s not useful in general.
With any Democrat in the White House, the unitary executive theory would be losing credibility for Congressmen. A negative level of personal utility so extreme that “suicidal” seems an apt descriptor.
You’re arguing from principle. But for a politician, his career is on the line. Not only his few term-limited years in office, but the gravy that flows to the bootlickers of the GOP machinery and its funders, in the lecture circuit, jobs for the friendly, and corrupt contracts.
If one starts breaking with the big donors, he can go back to being a small-scale land speculator in Podunk; someone else will take the job and drink it up with a smile.
Politics isn’t “local” as commonly understood; it’s personal.
Meh. Maybe, if Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers and so forth are both racist and sexist. But identitarian social justice may be missing the larger point.
Politicians are serving their careers not just by playing to the prejudices of their supporters (whether donors, voters, or perhaps most importantly party comrades who will support their bids for position); but by offering a point of distinction between themselves and the other party, so those supporters have a reason to care.