Changes

'''Unitary executive theory''' is a model of executive power proposed by constitutional law experts and neoconservative intellectuals such as [[Steven G. Calabresi]], [[John Yoo]] and [[Harvey C. Mansfield]]. It argues that all executive power is derived from the presidency and thus that all executive action must be consistent with the power of the office of the unitary executive.

'''Unitary executive theory''' is a model of executive power proposed by constitutional law experts and neoconservative intellectuals such as [[Steven G. Calabresi]], [[John Yoo]] and [[Harvey C. Mansfield]]. It argues that all executive power is derived from the presidency and thus that all executive action must be consistent with the power of the office of the unitary executive.

==Removal power==

==Removal power==

Calabresi and Yoo (2008) argue that all presidents have viewed the power to supervise and remove subordinates as central to the very meaning of "executive power" in Article II of the Constitution. Without such an ability, presidents would be unable to execute the law effectively and place their stamp on the administration.  They demonstrate that every president has embraced a conception of the unitary executive that at least encompasses the powers to remove and supervise their subordinates' exercise of delegated authority so as to create one centralized executive branch.  They attack the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. Olson<ref> It was a 1988 decision by Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], with only Justice Scalia dissenting, ruling that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional. The decision still stands.</ref> for permitting Congress to limit the executive's removal authority over agency officials, saying the existence of independent agencies cannot be squared with the historical recognition of the importance of the president's removal authority.

Calabresi and Yoo (2008) argue that all presidents have viewed the power to supervise and remove subordinates as central to the very meaning of "executive power" in Article II of the Constitution. Without such an ability, presidents would be unable to execute the law effectively and place their stamp on the administration.  They demonstrate that every president has embraced a conception of the unitary executive that at least encompasses the powers to remove and supervise their subordinates' exercise of delegated authority so as to create one centralized executive branch.  They attack the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. Olson<ref>It was a 1988 decision by Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], with only Justice Scalia dissenting, ruling that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional. The decision still stands.</ref> for permitting Congress to limit the executive's removal authority over agency officials, saying the existence of independent agencies cannot be squared with the historical recognition of the importance of the president's removal authority.

Critics contend that the founding fathers' "original intent" provides no clear evidence for a "unitary executive" whose decisions necessarily trump those of the other branches.  

Critics contend that the founding fathers' "original intent" provides no clear evidence for a "unitary executive" whose decisions necessarily trump those of the other branches.  

During the Presidency of [[George W. Bush]] (2001-09) critics said the unitary model gave the presidency more power than it should have according to the Founding Fathers, and that it was leading to what they termed an '''imperial presidency.''' However [[neoconservative]] intellectual and Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield one of the chief proponents of the theory pointed out why such a criticism does not make sense:

During the Presidency of [[George W. Bush]] (2001–09) critics said the unitary model gave the presidency more power than it should have according to the Founding Fathers, and that it was leading to what they termed an '''imperial presidency.''' However [[neoconservative]] intellectual and Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield one of the chief proponents of the theory pointed out why such a criticism does not make sense:

“If the executive is an adversary of the law, how can he carry out the function of enforcing it?” <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010014</ref>

“If the executive is an adversary of the law, how can he carry out the function of enforcing it?” <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010014</ref>

*    Waterman, Richard W.  "The Administrative Presidency, Unilateral Power, and the Unitary Executive Theory," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2009 39(1): 5-9  in [[Questia]]

*    Waterman, Richard W.  "The Administrative Presidency, Unilateral Power, and the Unitary Executive Theory," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2009 39(1): 5-9  in [[Questia]]

====references====

====References====

<references/>

<references/>

[[Category:United States Constitution]]

[[Category:United States Constitution]]