In hindsight, I feel like one of the major mistakes of the Biden years was to embrace the ever-growing power of the executive. But then again, it would take an unusually selfless and farsighted president to limit their own authority.
I was very excited when I read this headline, because I thought you were going to tell us about the dead federal employees Elon Musk is looking for, (in the cabinet meeting yesterday, he apparently said, "What we are trying to get to the bottom of is: We think there are a number of people on the government payroll who are dead,") and how the zombie apocalypse is really here. This was a little less television show worthy, but really good information!
Okay question though. This might not be knowable until we get a definite answer from the courts but, if SCOTUS does overturn Humphrey's Executive, isn't that really saying that Congress doesn't have the power to create an agency that doesn't fall completely under the executive power? But ... they already did. So does this result in a bunch of new executive-controlled agencies, or in the dissolution of those agencies? And I guess for the proponents of this theory, what do they want/what do they believe they are getting?
It would most likely keep the agencies in place, but just clarify that their leaders can both be appointed and removed by the president, thus placing them further under presidential control (as SCOTUS said in Humphrey’s Executor, an agency led by someone who serves at someone else’s pleasure isn’t really independent of them). Best parallel would be what happened to the CFPB after Seila Law, the Trump-era case referenced in the newsletter. As for what proponents of the theory want - A stronger executive. More clarified lines of responsibility. Fewer agencies with unclear accountability structures. A more united executive branch, working as one under the president’s agenda, rather than some freelancing.
I've always felt I had a handle on civics and a basic understanding of our government. After seeing the flow chart you presented today and learning more about the history of the executive power issue I realized that I should have read 50 Shades of Grey.
I am flummoxed. We know from history that the framers of the constitution very specifically did not want the US president to function as a monarch. And therefore they wanted to put limits on presidential power. How then can this unitary executive idea have any legs? Especially among so-called conservatives?
As explained above, the unitary executive theory is only about making all of the executive branch report to the President - so the Legislative branch could not create independent parts of the executive branch which are not under the control of the President (and then give these nominally executive branch agencies quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers).
That puts some limits on the Legislative branch's quasi-executive powers. But it doesn't allow the executive branch (nor the judicial) to pass legislation (or other cross-branch variations of violations of the separation of powers), so the theory still has the original limits on presidential power described in the Constitution. Some "co-called conservatives" believe that the separation of powers as described in that document is sufficient limitation. Others (in both parties) may disagree and seek additional limitation.
I speak just for clarification and accurate understanding (as best I understand things), not as my personal endorsement of the unitary executive theory.
I'm loving your civics lessons! And I thought I knew something about this topic! I worry about so-called "independent agencies". We should never, ever have agencies that are answerable to no one. I don't really even care who they answer to--any of the three branches or even directly the voters--but they should not be completely independent. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of human nature knows why this should never be the case. Even the heads of the three branches are answerable to someone: the President to Congress and, primarily, the voters; Congress to the voters; the Supreme Court to Congress (through the possibility of impeachment).
It’s a revolving door between Congress, the executive branch and the voters in terms of the content of their character. First of all, the voters that are eligible, actually have to vote. If a majority of those voters are willing to elect a felon, a pathological liar and an unqualified man as leader of the free world, then shame on them. They will reap what they have sown. If Congressmen are not willing to stand up to a man, whose primary goal in his presidency is to fill the coffers of his billionaire friends, then shame on them. Cowardice has no place in the United States Congress. Make no mistake about it, this is simply an exercise in the transfer of wealth, not an extrication of fraud or waste. This is a 4 year pathway for revenge for Trump who is petty and is well on his way to garnering the distinct qualification as the worst president in American history. Now whose fault is this?
Furthermore, if Congress is willing to approve a man such as Bobby Kennedy Junior, who is the leading influencer in terms of anti-vaccination in the entire world, we are in huge trouble, particularly since there are four presiding doctors in the Senate. There are consequences for actions and behaviors, and we are seeing those consequence play out every day in the lives of Americans because they did not bother to educate themselves about the dangers of a paternalistic and an authoritarian government.
Can anyone tell what president over the past hundred years took steps to get rid of the "pork" that creeps into every call for pet project funds that we tax payers have to foot without approval. What POTUS over the past century started weeding out the government employees who work from home or at desks sitting on their asses doing nothing for us? Wake the hell up before your merry-go-round collapses around your ears.
I found this very helpful. Thanks for parsing it out in this manner. And I love your "zombie employee" metaphor - completely accurate.
Thanks, Beth!! I’m so glad.
In hindsight, I feel like one of the major mistakes of the Biden years was to embrace the ever-growing power of the executive. But then again, it would take an unusually selfless and farsighted president to limit their own authority.
Anyway, terrific article, Gabe, as always!
Both parties always expand executive power when they’re in office, then live to regret it at soon as they’re not!
Superb. Why can't the 'big guys' write as cogent as you do???
I was very excited when I read this headline, because I thought you were going to tell us about the dead federal employees Elon Musk is looking for, (in the cabinet meeting yesterday, he apparently said, "What we are trying to get to the bottom of is: We think there are a number of people on the government payroll who are dead,") and how the zombie apocalypse is really here. This was a little less television show worthy, but really good information!
Hey, when I develop my hit TV show about the Merit Service Protection Board, you’ll think differently!
Great stuff.
Okay question though. This might not be knowable until we get a definite answer from the courts but, if SCOTUS does overturn Humphrey's Executive, isn't that really saying that Congress doesn't have the power to create an agency that doesn't fall completely under the executive power? But ... they already did. So does this result in a bunch of new executive-controlled agencies, or in the dissolution of those agencies? And I guess for the proponents of this theory, what do they want/what do they believe they are getting?
It would most likely keep the agencies in place, but just clarify that their leaders can both be appointed and removed by the president, thus placing them further under presidential control (as SCOTUS said in Humphrey’s Executor, an agency led by someone who serves at someone else’s pleasure isn’t really independent of them). Best parallel would be what happened to the CFPB after Seila Law, the Trump-era case referenced in the newsletter. As for what proponents of the theory want - A stronger executive. More clarified lines of responsibility. Fewer agencies with unclear accountability structures. A more united executive branch, working as one under the president’s agenda, rather than some freelancing.
I've always felt I had a handle on civics and a basic understanding of our government. After seeing the flow chart you presented today and learning more about the history of the executive power issue I realized that I should have read 50 Shades of Grey.
I am flummoxed. We know from history that the framers of the constitution very specifically did not want the US president to function as a monarch. And therefore they wanted to put limits on presidential power. How then can this unitary executive idea have any legs? Especially among so-called conservatives?
As explained above, the unitary executive theory is only about making all of the executive branch report to the President - so the Legislative branch could not create independent parts of the executive branch which are not under the control of the President (and then give these nominally executive branch agencies quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers).
That puts some limits on the Legislative branch's quasi-executive powers. But it doesn't allow the executive branch (nor the judicial) to pass legislation (or other cross-branch variations of violations of the separation of powers), so the theory still has the original limits on presidential power described in the Constitution. Some "co-called conservatives" believe that the separation of powers as described in that document is sufficient limitation. Others (in both parties) may disagree and seek additional limitation.
I speak just for clarification and accurate understanding (as best I understand things), not as my personal endorsement of the unitary executive theory.
I'm loving your civics lessons! And I thought I knew something about this topic! I worry about so-called "independent agencies". We should never, ever have agencies that are answerable to no one. I don't really even care who they answer to--any of the three branches or even directly the voters--but they should not be completely independent. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of human nature knows why this should never be the case. Even the heads of the three branches are answerable to someone: the President to Congress and, primarily, the voters; Congress to the voters; the Supreme Court to Congress (through the possibility of impeachment).
Outstanding explanation of a very complex subject - well-done, well-written, and very helpful.
Man. So good Gabe. Best read on Substack
It’s a revolving door between Congress, the executive branch and the voters in terms of the content of their character. First of all, the voters that are eligible, actually have to vote. If a majority of those voters are willing to elect a felon, a pathological liar and an unqualified man as leader of the free world, then shame on them. They will reap what they have sown. If Congressmen are not willing to stand up to a man, whose primary goal in his presidency is to fill the coffers of his billionaire friends, then shame on them. Cowardice has no place in the United States Congress. Make no mistake about it, this is simply an exercise in the transfer of wealth, not an extrication of fraud or waste. This is a 4 year pathway for revenge for Trump who is petty and is well on his way to garnering the distinct qualification as the worst president in American history. Now whose fault is this?
Furthermore, if Congress is willing to approve a man such as Bobby Kennedy Junior, who is the leading influencer in terms of anti-vaccination in the entire world, we are in huge trouble, particularly since there are four presiding doctors in the Senate. There are consequences for actions and behaviors, and we are seeing those consequence play out every day in the lives of Americans because they did not bother to educate themselves about the dangers of a paternalistic and an authoritarian government.
You obviously want a large and ineffective government.
Why would that be the case? Are these the only two options available to us?
Can anyone tell what president over the past hundred years took steps to get rid of the "pork" that creeps into every call for pet project funds that we tax payers have to foot without approval. What POTUS over the past century started weeding out the government employees who work from home or at desks sitting on their asses doing nothing for us? Wake the hell up before your merry-go-round collapses around your ears.
Really great stuff!
So...wasn't Dick Cheney a big fan the unitary executive theory? Any clue how he feels about that now?