General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I really can't believe some of what I've been reading here today. [View all]Igel
(35,337 posts)It can be used that way.
When you see glee at Obama's EOs dealing with Dreamers, when you see him using his authority to have federal contracts increasing minimum wage levels, when you see him trying to use executive authority to improve environmental guidelines, that's all "unitary executive." Congressional (R) can pitch a fit, but if it's within the purview of the executive branch, it's within the President's purview. And Congressfolk have no say in the matter.
Same for a lot of Commander in chief kinds of things--something that (D) only recognized when it wasn't a political battle with Bush II. (Then again, same with a lot of executive decisions. We hated the Bush II unitary executive; we luv us some Obama-style unitary executive, and many call for even greater exertion of "unitary executive" powers that exceed what's allowed by law.)
The idea ultimately is in the constitution: All authority over the executive branch is invested with the President. There are three branches: Legislative, judicial, and executive. There's one executive branch, so it's unitary, all united under one President who has all the power (in that branch, and only in that branch).