executive?

Put aside your party, ideology, and other stuff and just think about this: (copied from the heavy energy thread)

I know in my personal life, I would ignore law in some cases of survival. (frankly, I've come very close to this) Perhaps a President might ignore law in like kind. I think I could get to a place where I understand that. We might need that.

Is this, or is this not, one of those times where we need to suspend law to get the business of the people done? I think that's the greater question, not posed by the clash of ideologies posted above.

Oil is a biggie, but it's not yet that big of a deal, and we've got options, and we've got time it seems.

Terror is a biggie too, but look around: Does it feel that scary to you? Scary enough to suspend law? I sure don't wake up every morning that afraid of being blown up. I do worry about getting picked up, or beaten, etc...

(and I was beaten by the police a while back too, so that's actually got me thinking a whole lot more than potential terrorists attacks do.)

Actually, when I was beaten, the law was more intact than it is now. Then, I used the courts as they should be used, resolved the whole mess and it's essentially done. Call it a civics lesson and move on. That's where I'm at on that score.

Today, I might find that to be a different exercise however, given the diminished state of law we live under now.

Meanwhile, other aspects of my life have not changed significantly, so where is the justification for the degrading, suspension, whatever of core laws? I'm just not feeling the raw fear necessary for this to occur. Are you guys? Is it the right now, I'm gonna die and can see it kind of fear that makes one just act --with energy?

In short, there are two discussions:

-the potential need for the unconstrained executive and their ability to act with energy

,and

-this, right now, being one of those times where said executive power is warranted.

So, let's assume the former could happen and focus on the latter.

This administration is telling us this is one of those times. A significant percentage of us agrees to this being one of those times. This percentage is not currently a majority, however.

On the surface, if you take things at face value, don't do any digging, etc... it's an ugly story --really ugly! Maybe ugly enough to warrant this crap.

Regardless of what you believe, pro this, anti-that, all of us really should be concerned about the inconsistancies that come with a closer look at what we've been told is true. The deeper we dig, the less consistant this story is --the weaker the case becomes for this being one of those times where the unitary executive is warranted. The case is not solid, in other words.

And that brings me to a last point, in context with these times right now:

If we are indeed living in times where the executive sitting above the law is somehow justified, shouldn't said justification ring true? Shouldn't the total need to act overwhelm all else but survival?

Lies, corruption, mistakes, cultivating fear, etc... all diminish the case for the unitary executive, do they not? If there is time for these things, then we are not at the brink are we? Meaning there is time for law to do it's thing right?

If we find these things, are we not looking at exploitation instead of preservation?

Honestly, I want to hear what you all think about that. It's worrysome, isn't it?

Because of the somewhat disturbing sound of the phrase "unitary executive," I decided to do some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

This has been an ongoing debate since the founding of this country. If I understand the issue correctly, the unitary executive theory says that the President has ultimate authority in the faithful execution of laws because he is the head of the executive branch. All departments in the executive branch (EPA, military, etc.) answer to the President. Furthermore, Congress and the courts don't have authority over the executive branch.

One interesting theoretical consequence of the unitary executive is that the different departments in the executive branch can't sue one another because that would effectively have the President suing himself. However, there are many legal consequences to this view that I do not fully understand. How do interbranch checks and balances work under the unitary executive theory? Is there a Constitutional scholar in the house?