TheScout

Even a theory needs a definition. I think that is why we are having so much trouble even arguing about it. We don't even have a common agreement on what it even means. Once you understand what it means, then you can debate its applicability. For example we know what Marxism is, or Capitalism is, or Liberatarianism and can explain it and such we argue about it. I would send conservatives do not tend to be strict constructionists because it supports their ideals. They believe so because they think that is the right way to interpret it. A responsible person would not just cast this aside wh

I guess we will not agree on this. But it seems to me the Wikipedia definition is the most concise you will get. Its not an argument like you seem to demand. Simply a base definition. I don't get how you say originalism does not have to be simplistic, but absolute textual originalism is. Is it better if we are originalist and only partially faithful to the original intent/meaning. I am not the one who made up the only two ways to interpret the Constitution thing. That was actually taken from a quote my Justice Scalia. I guess you don't like him or think much of his intellect either

Well somebody must have a good article/definition of the theory if wikipedia doesn't? The article you supplied was just pure bashing and didn't even pretend to be unbiased. And though the article omitted counter-arguments, etc - it supposes to be an encyclpedia article. Those aren't often points of debate. (Though I suppose with wikipedia that is changing). But I do ask, do you have a better definition? I would actually like to see it. Nobody advocates that it is an unconstitutional theory. One would just say the President has complete power of the executive branch within the

A holiday in several Southern states. Deo Vindice!

Darn, I thought we could trick Him.

Since we are not sure about God, maybe we should just error on the side of caution and say we believe in Him. Then if He exists He will be happy. If not, not harm.

Hmm, well Yoo doesn't seem to be a neocon, he could be but I do not really know. But he is not the only one who has written such things. I doubt we are really that far apart as it seems. I would say (even though its Wikipedia) that the definition is probably a pretty fair, non-political one. Wouldn't you? Now what in that definition do you not agree with? Maybe I am just totally out of touch on this one, but I don't get why everyone just seems to hate this theory! It also seems odd that you pretend to be a traditional conservative and seem to agree with the living c

I have never heard Gen. Eisenhower portrayed as such a radical. I always liked him.

I didn't see your last post when I wrote mine. And I am Catholic by the way. That author seems to have a little axe to grind though perhaps? I know its only Wikipedia, but this seems to offer a maybe less political view of the theory. More in line of what I always believed it was. "In American political and legal discourse, the unitary executive theory is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that basically means the president controls the entire executive branch. Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the details, and therefore s

Beavah, I think maybe you have a different definition of the Unitary Executive theory than I do. I must admit I do not know too much about that. I never got the whole Roman Emperor idea or the fact that he "ignores" other branches. To me, the "core notion" is that theh President has complete control of legitimate actions of the executive branch. One of the biggest aspects of it I reckon is the Presidential appointment/removal power. History shows many battles between the President and Congress about this. This is what President Andrew Johnon's impeachment was about. That is why I d

"Sure. Now could you answer my question from earlier?" "I've already posited a situation where congress says X is constitutional and SCOTUS says it isn't, so now where do you turn to determine what is consistent with the constitution?" Lete everyone decide! The executive should favor which side he believes is constitutional. States shouldn't allow either branch to pursue illegal methods. The people should ignore or resist illegal measures as well. It is not an absurd theory. Many early American statesmen thought in such a way. Recall, James Madison said, "Nothing has yet

Well Meryln's theory of Presidential legitimatism shows how literalism is a faulty method of Constitutional interpretation. There are many vague parts. As was brought up with the Unitary Executive Theory, what does the Takings Clause mean? Or the Vesting Clause? Clearing we can't agree on how the 1st Amendment should be interpreted. These are just a few examples. This is why it is important to look at the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution and the States that ratified it. We can try to find out what they meant by "due process" and "cruel and unusual," etc. We

Hal: "So the SCOTUS decided that some of FDR's programs were unconstitutional and then FDR decided that the SCOTUS was not limited to 9 members by the constitution so he attempted to appoint more justices (court packing). The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional." I htink your history is wrong on the Judicial Reorganization Bill of 1937. The SCOTUS did not rule it unconstitutional. It failed in the Senate. It is certainly within the Article III powers of Congress to design the SCOTUS. Since it was constitutional and the bill passed clearly FDR would have had the right to do so.

Hal, thinking more, you even answered your own question! "The other branches are free to ignore SCOTUS decision if it is not in keeping with the Constitution." 'Of course they should not go along with something "NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CONSTITUTION." Or should they go along with something not in keeping with the Constitution? The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws

Hal, its not as absurd as you may think. LOL. Without going into extensive historical detail . . . Andrew Jackson certainly thought that way. Read his Maysville Road Veto. As did Jefferson and Madison. Read the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. As did John C. Calhoun. Read the South Carolina Exposition and Protest.And many lesser early American statesmen. Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, should the President execute a law he thinks is unconstitutional? Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, should Congress pass a law they think are unconstitutional? And what about the Sta

Hal, you write: "So you oppose: No Child Left Behind? Medicare (including prescription benefits instituted by Bush)?" Yes I do. "I'm guessing you also agree that the federal government can't overrule state legislatures on such issues as medical marijuana?" Yes I would, its a state responsibility according to the Constitution. "I suppose you would also oppose any federal law limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman?" Yes I would, its a state responsibility according to the Constitution. "I'm sure that if congress had passed that law tha

Beavah, astute point. However, the federal government would continue to take tax money from any state that opted out. This would force the state to go in the "negative" by many millions of dollars. It would be irresponsible for a state legislature to do so. They are almost being coerced. The problem is still the federal government using its spending power to effect unconstitutional ends. The spending power is clearly not unlimited or the federal government would have the power to do anything.

You are smart enough to know that the spending power is not unlimited. The federal government can not spend for purposes that are unconstitutional, whether a court says so or not. I agree that the other branches could "ignore" a SCOTUS decision if it is not in keeping with the Constitution. There are three branches to the federal government as well as the states. They all have the duty to interpret the Constitution in undertaking their roles.

No. But the federal government has been barred from doing other things that it does not have the power to do under the Constitution. Recall that for the vast majority of of American history the federal governement did not even try to interfere with the State's powers over education and health care so there was no need to strike down such legislation. I am sure if the federal government tried to take control of education or health care like they do today at any time during the first century and a half of the republic they would have got mercilessly struck down. However, once again I

"If the people WANT the federal government to have something to do with health care or education, does the constitution prohibit this?" Recall the 10th Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since health care and education are not mentioned in the Constitution it seems a stretch to say such powers were delegated to the federal government. Under that logic almost anything could be stretched. What if the "people" want the federal government t

Yeah because liberals love the Constitution so much. I missed where it mentioned how the federal government had anything to do with health care or education.

We could just destroy the federal monopoly on money to solve the problem. Return to free banking. All banks can issue notes backed by bullion reserves. This would crush government overspending and foreign adventurism as the government would actually have to tax to get its funds and couldn't rely on foreign loans and manipulating/creating paper currency. We wouldn't have to worry about housing bubbles and such as easy credit would not be so easy to come by. Smaller amounts of credit will ensure only the best business ideas and most sound people would get loans.

I don't know why Congress got involved anyway. I missed that part in the Constitution about the power to regulate cable I suppose.

Lisa, You seem to forget the difference between Neo-conservatism and Paleo-conservative. Bush is very conservative . . . in the neo-conservative sense.

Wow thats clever.