Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

See, that's what I mean about ignoring all of American history to come to your unitary executive theory.

The Constitution establishes control and checks on that control. "checks and balances". Unitary executive theory is all control, no checks. How does Congress conduct oversight of the executive branch in this scenario?

And you're also trying to do the same thing to me right here. To accept that unitary executive theory isn't about being a king, I'd have to ignore everything the advocates of the theory have said and done. He argued in court that he has absolute immunity to commit crimes, including directing the government to kill his political opponents. You can't argue that in court and then tell me it's not about being a king. That's dictator logic.

Look at the executive right now, he's essentially got the power of a king. He can't be arrested, charged, or investigated. Can commit crimes and hide them. Can direct others to commit crimes and pardon them. Can direct his DOJ to investigate and prosecute anyone he wants. Can control and direct his military without review. Congress can't conduct oversight. Can you explain how the president is now functionally different from a king, and square that with the point of the Revolutionary War?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: