« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Barack Obama: Unitary Executive Theorist

Others on this site and elsewhere have done a marvelous job of exposing the fact that Obama almost certainly broke the law in his dismissal of Gerald Walpin (and perhaps other IGs). This story is not concerned with what Obama has done, it is concerned with what it reveals about Obama’s view of executive power. What Obama’s firing of Walpin reveals is very simple: Obama is a believer in the Unitary Executive Theory.

See, a lot of Democrats and left-wing bloggers bloviated on endlessly about the Unitary Executive Theory without ever bothering to educate themselves about what the Unitary Executive Theory is. See, leftists tend to view the world through the prism of power-grabbing conspiracy theories. So when they encountered something called the “Unitary Executive Theory” that had conservative adherents, they immediately assumed it was a conspiracy theory by which conservative Presidents would attempt to increase Presidential power. Soon enough the Unitary Executive Theory became responsible for Guantanamo, “torture”, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and Valerie Plame. No leftists ever bothered to point out or explain how this was so, or to even make a pass at understanding the most rudimentary basics of what the Unitary Executive Theory stood for.

The Unitary Executive Theory (as Samuel Alito patiently attempted to explain over and over to many of these leftist morons) has nothing to do whatsoever with the scope of executive power. A Unitary Executive Theorist might well believe that the office of the Presidency does (or should) have very little power whatsoever. The only thing the Unitary Executive Theory concerns itself with is who is ultimately responsible for wielding whatever executive power the executive branch possesses. The Unitary Executive Theory may be summed up succinctly in one sentence: The President has the Constitutional authority to fire anyone in the Executive Branch. In other words, anyone who wields executive power is answerable ultimately to the President.

Let me make this simpler for Glenn Greenwald, et al (e.g., Thomas Ellers and Rick Ellensburg). Believing in the Unitary Executive Theory would not make a President any more or less likely to approve of torture, or Guantanamo Bay, or warrantless wiretapping or any other such thing. You know what it would make a President more likely to do? It’d make a President more likely to fire some IGs in violation of statute because he believes that the Constitution gives him the summary authority to do so.

So, while Obama and his many illiterate followers may have campaigned against and decried the Unitary Executive Theory, it appears that Obama is the first American President in the last 8 years to have violated the law because of his belief in it. So unless Obama is ready to apologize and rescind his unlawful actions against Walpin, et al, it’s time for him to own up to his strong belief in the Unitary Executive Theory.

COMMENTS

  • bs

    You’re on your game tonight, Leon.

  • spainishirish

    There appears to be a seperation of powers issue shaping up as well with some of the Dems who haven’t gotten the memo yet about how great the Unitary Executive Theory has become. They’ll probably buckle tomorrow, though.

  • bobojake

    I had a boss once that believed and acted the same way obama does. It was L working there but he as a Vice-President of a National Company he finally caught up in his own ego power trip and got fired and had to go to Mexico to work for 3 years.
    Yes the employees shouted with joy that day because he had them convinced he was insurmountable. It will be a joyous day when the same thing happens to obama.

  • http://www.RedState.com/ETCartman Kenny Solomon
  • Caleb

    nt

  • Amy Miller

    55555555555555555555555555!

  • TNJim

    I’m bookmarking this. A great explanation, Leon!

  • mbecker908

    the Democratic Congress does to impede this UE.

    • Achance

      What Republicans should be doing is seeking out the people that Comrade Obama is pressuring or forcing out and find jobs for them on our side of the ditch. We don’t have the shadow government of non-profits, unions, and law firms, but we do have some resources to give jobs and contracts to the dissidents and whistleblowers. Then we can use them for a counterattack.

      This is Democrat playbook since the Clinton days and they do it at the state level as well. An IG is pretty brazen since they do have explicit cause protection, but that really doesn’t seem to matter to them. As soon as they take office they set out to remove or intimidate into silence all the senior level career employees, the people who actually know and follow the rules and who make the government run. If they can’t get rid of them, they reassign them to doing nothing and give them an office with no windows or phone and a seat that flushes; you have to be really close to retirement to be able to stand that for long. It is really hard to come to work when nobody will dare be seen talking to you, you don’t have anything to do, you get jerked around by the boss, who you know is trying to provoke you into doing something stupid.

      Once they get the experienced people out of the way, they replace or supplant them with either Democrat operatives or with very junior employees who don’t even know what they don’t know. Then there are no complaints from inside the workforce about who the money gets sent to, how the contract gets let, or who got hired for what. This is all combined with a PR campaign about how they’re cleaning up and streamlining. What they’re really doing is eliminating all the rules about money, people, and stuff so they’re free to do as they please. Then, the only thing they have to worry about is public opinion and since Democrats can count on good press and on the media never peeking under their skirts, they can do as they please without regard to those silly laws and things.

      • Tbone

        When you’re right, you’re right.

      • mbecker908

        really sharp, really agressive and REALLY nasty attorneys who can fill US Attorney slots in the next Republican administration. We should be looking for people who will be willing to pursue indictments against anybody and everybody with a “D” behind his name for anything even remotely felonious.

        • Achance

          now, but Republican governors still seem to be stuck on stupid. If we wait until the federal auditors and investigators are perp walking people out of Red State capitols, it will be too late. As I’ve said before, the rules on federal financial reporting are so obtuse and subjective that any fund manager who signs an FSR or other federal report is essentially signing his/her life away if the fed wants to come after him. It is an absolute certainty that this Administration will use this tool on the Red States in furtherance of the Democrat “All Republicans are Corrupt” meme.

  • Common_Cents

    Aren’t they in the executive branch, controlled by Obama, duplicating many usurping congress?

    You’d think congress would be getting a little miffed at getting squeezed, and especially the states. There is obviously a little rumbling but no thunder as of yet.

    • eburke

      Not only is he not well enough to help them reach cloture but for his many (innumerable?) faults, the former Grand Wizard of the KKK is quite protective of the role of the Congress in general and the Senate in particular. He has made no bones about not wanting/liking/appreciating all the ‘czars’ appointed by the TOTUS for that very reason.

      Republican leadership on the other hand?

      Chirp!

      Chirp!

      Chirp!

      • Mike gamecock DeVine
        • eburke
          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • eburke

            But someone like that would *never* be accepted or promoted to, let’s say, majority leader in the party that so embraces diversity, tolerance and love.

            (I must now leave my keyboard as I think I made myself nauseous typing that last sentence)

  • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

    Digg it!
    Reddit it!
    Stumbled it (no links for that one)
    Tweeted it

    Get this one out to everyone you can. Conservatives will love it and Liberals will hate it (and honestly I LOVE that Liberals will hate it).

  • http://www.georgeclaghorn.com George Claghorn

    Excellent work, Leon!

    • http://www.georgeclaghorn.com George Claghorn
  • duke

    Bush, villified by the libs for being a believer in the “Unitary Executive Theory” when he canned a few lawyers who worked for the government in the Justice Dept. at his pleasure, was a tyrant.

    The messiah, who just illegally canned an independant fraud watchdog in the same manner as Nixon did when he canned Arch Cox in the “Saturday Night Massacre,” is somehow NOT a tyrant?!

    I smell a corrupt Chicago crook from the Al Capone school of politics.

    • bs

      “Gerald Walpin = Archibald Cox” ever since this happened. I’m trying to build a meme. It’s tough being a trailblazer.

      • olsmithie
  • itrytobenice

    And if congress wants any control over the spending they are authorizing, they’d better get their own auditors.

    The Unitary Executive is going to make sure they have no say so in how he spends it if they don’t. That’s why Michelle’s henchman is now in charge of the Americorps bureaucracy.

  • janis

    considers herself to be one, too? Because I’m thinking that Michelle believes herself to be just as much the Pres. as he does.

    • duke

      Didn’t we just have one of those a while back – just before W? I recall someone calling herself the “co-president.”

      • janis

        person to work for and around, too. After working for the Bush family for 8 years, how much must it suck to work for people who probably treat you like appliances again?

  • icbm

    in the executive branch of government.

    (Not to say there aren’t other reasonable positions – this debate goes back to the 1790′s.)

    • Mike gamecock DeVine
    • Aaron Gardner

      Isn’t there a law that states the President has to give 30 days notice and an explanation of the firing to congress?

      Firing an IG is different than firing an AG.

      • Mike gamecock DeVine

        Congress to prevent the firing. And besides, I think icbm is stating his preference for executive power, with which I agree.

        But I do favor an accountability requirement for IGs as opposed to DAs, although I could see a justification for such a 30-day requirement for DAs as well.

        The bottom line is that Obama can fire them and we can point out that he broke a law that can’t be enforced except by voters at the voting booth or in some institutional way by Congress on other matters, like confirmations etc.

        • Aaron Gardner

          I understand that the law has no teeth beyond what the congress chooses to give it at any moment in time, and with the congress we got it will remain gumming soft objects. But like I said, my only point is to kill the comparison to the Bush AG firings, in which he was not only completely justified but acting within the law, as opposed to Obama, who may be justified but is working outside the law in order to expedite his will while at the same time protecting his friends.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            and of course Bush’s mistake was in trying to justify the firings rather than simply brushing off the questions.

          • icbm

            n/t

            by the way, my position on executive firings hasn’t been law since the “Humphrey’s Estate” decision in the 1930′s, when the Supreme Court overturned a magnificent 1920′s decision by Chief Justice Taft, “Myers v. U.S.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States

        • Achance

          this person not “at will” or “at the pleasure.” There may not be access to the administrative appeal mechanisms that merit system employees have, but such an employee does have remedy available through the courts with a wrongful discharge suit. This guy’s biggest problem will be the opposite of that faced by Ted Stevens. All you had to do to Sen. Stevens is charge him with being a Republican and a DC jury would sentence him to death. In this case, all you have to do is charge IG Walpin with opposing the Will of The One, and they’ll find against him.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            are for political purposes only, i.e. for Congressional oversight.

          • Achance

            amendments. It specifically says the IG is not considered a policy makingl position, so it wasn’t a serve at the pleasure position even under the old law. So, probably most any cause would be sufficient, e.g., “doesn’t fit in with our management plans,” but if you state a cause, it has to be a legal cause and you have to be able to prove it. I’d be happy to represent the guy in a labor arbitration armed only with the stuff the management said about his being disoriented etc.

          • Aaron Gardner

            he could hook the two of you up…lol

          • Achance

            at that level he doesn’t have access to an adminstrative remedy. ‘Course, if you do that you’d better be fixed for awhile ’cause you ain’t working anywhere that a Democrat government has any influence.

            When I rather noisily quit my merit system job over Knowles Administration corruption, both the Administration and various union leaders very publicly said that they’d make sure I never worked in Alaska again. They were very nearly successful with that for awhile, people in politics or working for the government would cross the street rather than be seen talking to me. Finally, the Republican controlled legislature started pitching me some scraps in the form of contracts to work for them. I’ll admit now that I really only planned for scraping by for the remaining two years of his term and I could not conceive of the SOB being re-elected. When he did get re-elected and I was facing another four years with no way to make a decent living in my field, things were getting grim.

            Interestingly, by about half way through the second term, the Administration was so sick of their union friends and all the internal problems from what they’d done to the State’s HR/LR functions, they hired me back as a supervisor to fix the mess. After four years in the wilderness living off scraps, I’ll be the first to admit that I had mellowed some of my delicate sensibilities about the stuff they were doing.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Achance

            the amended law came up and that’s where I found it was an amendment to the ’78 Act. You have to go a ways into the stack to get that one as it was enacted.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • olsmithie
          • icbm

            n/t

  • Dan McLaughlin

    Hahahahahahaha