The Binary Executive
Now I understand why the Bush administration monarchists like the phrase "unitary executive." They were hiding their actual aim to create a binary executive, in which the Vice President is not subordinate to the President. The fiercest proponent of Presidential power was David Addington first counsel now chief of staff of Cheney. The absurd claims, which convince no sensible person but might flatter a total idiot, were part of their plan to seize power exploiting the total idiocy of Bush.
iT FIGURES KING GEORGE WOULD WANT A DEVIOUS OPERATIVE BEHIND THE SCENES LIKE DICK CHENEY. THIS ADMINISTRATION IS ONE OF TH WORST FOR SECRECY AND BETRAYAL OF THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, MAKES ONE WONDER WHERE THEIR LOYALTIES ARE BUT THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT LOYAL TO MOST AMERICANS FEELINGS AND SENSE OF URGENCIES THAT OUGHT TO BE DEALTH WITH INSTEAD THEY CONTINUE TO FORGE THEIR OWN PERSOANL AGENDAS AT ALL COSTS. I THINK IN VIEW OF THEIR PERFORMANCE THIS PAST 7 YEARS THE PARTY THEY CLAIM TO BE A PART OF WILL SUFFER AS FAR AS GETTING ANY VOTES IN FUTURE ELECTIONS. VOTERS HAVE VERY LONG MEMORIES!
ReplyDeleteI do not agree. The President is the President, and the the rest of the administration operatives including the vice president and vice presidential staff operate just as the President wishes or they are gone or lose the ability to influence policy.
ReplyDeleteThis is George Bush's administration, and therein lies the credit or rather blame.
The Washington Post articles were not the least i8nteresting to me. I know how George Bush thinks and that is enough to know how Dick Cheney thinks and operates.
anne
I may be accidently posting this twice: if so, please remove one.
ReplyDeleteThe term "binary executive" entered my mind as well.
The people and the Constitution invest only one man, the president, with executive powers. The vice-president has no assigned powers except to break ties in
Congress and assume presidential power, publically and officially when the president is unable to fulfill his/her duties.
Unitary powers should bring unitary or sole accountability to the executive -- the decider, not his appointees, is accountable, before Congress and the people for his decisions, meaning he can be called to explain, through impeachment if need be.
So, can a "unitary" president dilute his accountabilty, the trade off for the unitary power, by "sharing' his vested powers to another?
I think you and I are right; for all the touting of "unitary executive", it has become a subdivided presidency, binary at least, who knows? Because if the vice-president is equal to the president , he too can share presidential power with his loyalists too.
Maybe it's not a problem of one King, or
even two. Maybe there are numerous people invested with various presidential prerogatives and priveleges..