So Tony Snow , ex-Faux "news"-caster, told the "press"tidigitators that Congress has no oversight authority over the executive branch!? Once upon a time, before a creature called Reagan began dismantling public education, it was common for kids to learn about things called checks and balances. I suppose Snowjob was edumacated either at home, by a Neil-Bush style private school or by the Ivy League. In any case, he's as wrong as can be and the mythical basis for a Unitary Executive is not only a product for a flat-earth bake sale, but should be seen as so Right-leaning as to be perpendicular to democracy, ready to ram it to death. Welcome to Bizarro world. Repugs call it a different interpretation. What it is is a serious danger and a high crime.
Let's rewind a little more. In a sweltering building in 1787, a bunch of guys in tights got together to hash out the basis for our government. Unlike today's leaders, they all spoke intelligible English. There they argued over the Executive branch. They argued over how many executives there should be. They argued over whether the exec should be removable or not and who should do it. In the end, they decided that there should be one executive who could be impeached by Congress and who would be required to tell Congress what the Executive was up to occasionally. They even decided the president would have to get confirmations for all his appointments from Congress. In essence, they figured they might one day get a real git and would need an out. Boy, if they only knew.
Here's the problem. These self-styled wunderkinds either can't read or are so bloody damaged that they are wholly incapable of hearing, seeing, speaking.......thinking the truth (capital or lowercase t). Their comprehension skills are similar to a goldfish's memory - 3 seconds to make the connection.....1......2......oh no, it's gone! If you think they don't eat their own baloney just listen to their "experts," like John Yoo at Berkely law (my favorite punching bag). His writing has been described as "tortured logic." Hmmmm. They torture the abstract too but claim they don't? I wonder if they perform extraordinary renditions on it?
Now these eegits (Oh I know. Calling names is bad. We don't want to impede a dialogue.......), anyway, these eegits will argue that the debate hedged between a weak and powerful executive and, since the presidential powers are mostly undefined in Article II, whereas Congress's powers are strictly defined by Article I (not really), it follows that the president has broad authority. Sounds like a pretty persuasive position, huh? Goldfish turds! Article II has to be taken in the same context as Article I, not separately. Article II follows Article I for a reason. Congress is the most powerful branch of government being the branch with the House which represents the direct will of the people and has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings. With few exceptions, the president has no power to act except upon Congressional legislation that may be "executed" or vetoed. (Today Repugs claim Congress has no authority, other than funding authority over Iraq. Besides the fact that Bush violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Act by invading Iraq without notifying Congress, Congress may both declare and undeclare war).
But yeah, some of the tight-wearing, wigged guys wanted a king; specifically Hamilton. He thought that the public was too stupid to rule itself. (We may have finally come to the crossroads where we find out once and for all. But, at least, we'd want a semi-reasonable king, right?) Thing is it doesn't matter because Hamilton lost the argument then. So where do these blatantly anti-American nutsos get the idea that it's still an open debate? Really want the answer? Okay......you and me! The public is responsible for every crime this egregious excuse for an administration has and will commit. They can't change the rules unless we let them. We made an effort by changing Congress last round, but it appears we went back to sleep.
Hey! THERE'S NO BASIS FOR A UNITARY EXECUTIVE! In fact, in light of Bush/Cheney's motives for declaring it, being to suck up to fat cat, robber baron heads of trans-nationals, it's probably definitional treason. So why hasn't the House done its Constitutional duty and impeached these S.O.B.s? We haven't demanded it.
