The Urinary Executive

[omega minimo]

Reagan’s Trickle Down Theory was never gonna work and it’s been Trickle On ecomonics ever since. Bush Senior, when he ran against Reagan, called it “Voodoo Economics” but he knew which end of the trickle he wanted to be on.

Eventually the trickle became a tornado-force siphon, sucking the blood, sweat and tears of the folks at the bottom of the pyramid ever upward toward the elites that Junior Bush calls “my base.”

Americans have noticed by now that they are being trickled on but why aren’t they (more) pissed off?

The current president-- appointed by the Supreme Court-- nominated to that Court Mr. Elite-o, who advocates a Unitary Executive theory. This would provide the golden boy at the top of the golden pyramid a new position to trickle from: King.

Maybe some folks think there is nothing they can do and have decided they KNOW how the House and Senate will vote so what-the-hell, so they do nothing and they were "right"-- but YOU know BETTER!

EFF: Contacting Congress (& Other US Policymakers) Factsheet
Electronic Frontier Foundation is a nonprofit group working to protect your digital rights.
www.eff.org/congress/

Townhall.com :: Contact Congress...Then write a letter to your Members of Congress, who you can find by entering your ZIP ...
www.townhall.com/action/contact_congress.html

Contacting Congress
Search the Contacting Congress Database for yourRepresentative or Senator's phone number (DC and district office), fax number and e-mail address by clicking ...
www.stanford.edu/~dement/congress.html

:patriot:

On the January 13 PBS “NOW” program (transcript not available), a guest was asked “who determines the scope of the extended powers of the President?”

Answer: “THE SUPREME COURT”

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/civilliberties06.html

:kick: :kick:

Following are links to DU threads and other sources for info on the Unitary Executive. Check it out.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2365222

Testimony on Alito from Professor Goodwin Liu
Posted by realFedUp

snip

That concern is Judge Alito’s lack of skepticism toward government power that infringes on individual rights and liberties. Throughout his career, with few exceptions, Judge Alito has sided with the police, prosecutors, immigration officials, and other government agents, while taking a minimalist approach to recognizing official error and abuse. He is less concerned about government overreaching than federal appeals judges nationwide, less concerned than Republican-appointed appeals judges nationwide, and less concerned than his Republican-appointed colleagues on the Third Circuit (see Appendix A). In this area, Judge Alito’s record is at the margin of the judicial spectrum, not the mainstream. His deferential instinct toward government is at odds with the Supreme Court’s vital role in protecting privacy, freedom, and due process of law, and it deserves special concern in light of the questionable tactics being used to fight the War on Terror.

:patriot:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2365269

Adam Ciongoli ....Alito's "Corner Man"
posted by HeatherDawn

On January 10th during the Alito hearings Senator Durbin mentions at the beginning of his 20 minute round of questioning that he had a "disagreement" during the break of the hearings with Adam Ciongoli whom Senator Durbin referred to as Alito's "Corner Man". Adam Ciongoli has been featured on EVERY cable news outlet over the last few days fiercely supporting the Alito nomination. He is labeled only as a 'former Alito clerk'.

He is much more than that though, as Counselor to the Attorney General John Ashcroft, he served as the principal legal advisor in the Office of the Attorney General. He was known as 'Ashcroft's right hand'. During that time he was a key drafter of the Patriot Act and implementing the Unitary Executive theory in Bush's administration.

He was also put in charge of the 9/11 Commission:
http://www.becomethemedia.com/news/2003/WH_delays_911_i...

"The administration decided that the 9/11 commission would have to channel its requests to obtain documents and interview personnel from the executive branch through the Justice Department. Adam G. Ciongoli, counselor to the attorney general who was assigned to take on this role, says he has merely acted as a "facilitator."

But Commissioner Max Cleland, a former Democratic senator from Georgia, says that Mr. Ciongoli is acting as a political gatekeeper, "cherry picking" the documents the White House wants to withhold. "It's obvious that they're sifting the information to the 9/11 commission now," he says. "We're way, way late here. The picture is not encouraging."

Prior to that position, Ciongoli served as Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, which he joined in April 1999.

From 1996 to 1999, Ciongoli practiced appellate law in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Kirkland and Ellis, where he worked along side Kenneth Starr.

He also served as a law clerk to United States Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1995 to 1996.

Ciongoli graduated from Georgetown University Law Center, magna cum laude, and holds a B.A. in history from the University of Pennsylvania.

Ciongoli is now Vice President of Time Warner.

The reason I believe Alito was selcted by the Bush administration to be the next Supreme Court Justice is because of the Unitary Executive theory, Adam Ciongoli also supports this theory, which everyone should read (see link below)

Samuel Alito in a 2001 appearance before the conservative Federalist Society, he said he continued to believe in the idea of the "unitary executive." That concept holds that the Constitution gives the president all federal executive power, and means Congress likely could not grant agency heads powers outside the president's reach.

This is a link to an extensive history of the theory of the Unitary Executive and its implementation by the Bush administration:
http://www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs/paper.pdf

:bounce:

[me b zola]

1. The Urinary Executive, pissing on the American people since 2001

Excellent post. K&R


:kick:

[ashling]

2. Yes, excellent

unfortunately, my congress critters are contributing to the stream (as in "catch a clean stream in the cup")

[omega minimo]

3. and we have Feinstein to thank for another fine performance

:sarcasm:



:thumbsdown: :kick:

[omega minimo]

4. Link to Jennifer Van Bergen article on UT

thanks scubadude :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x137801

[omega minimo]

5. More info on Unitary Executive

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive_Branch_Decid...

Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times
Jennifer Van Bergen

The Bush administration has been using an extreme version of an obscure doctrine called the Unitary Executive Theory to justify executive actions that far exceed past presidents' power, RAW STORY has learned. The doctrine assumes, in its extreme form, nearly absolute deference to the Executive branch from Congress and the Judiciary.

According to Dr. Christopher Kelley, a professor in the Department of Political Sciences at Miami University, as of April 2005, President Bush had used the doctrine 95 times when signing legislation into law, issuing an executive order, or responding to a congressional resolution. The President announced in these signings that he would construe provisions in a manner consistent with his “constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.” While the President clearly has the authority to supervise the executive branch, it is unclear how far he might construe this authority under the unitary executive theory.
<>
The Administration’s actions under this doctrine have become so prevalent that even conservatives on the Supreme Court who are sympathetic to the unitary executive theory have felt compelled to reject them. Last year, for example, the Court ruled that the President does not have absolute authority to detain enemy combatants without due process.
<>
The unitary executive doctrine, in its mildest form, claims only that the President has the power to appoint, control, and remove executive officers, as well as the duty to interpret the law as it applies to his office. The doctrine is being used by the Bush Administration, however, to claim the authority to decide what is and what is not the law in areas that some legal experts view as suspect. Michael A. Froomkin, professor at University of Miami Law School, told RAW STORY that some of Bush’s applications of the doctrine are “highly dubious.”

:kick:

"What this has meant in practice is the president has controlled information within the executive branch despite the insistence of the Congress to obtain the information, and it has meant the president has influenced regulatory policy in a way that benefits his preferred political constituents."

http://www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs/2004/09/unitary-ex...

BlogThis!
Media Watch

Sunday, September 19, 2004
The Unitary Executive 

This past August 5, President Bush signed into law the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act” for 2005. In his statement that accompanied the bill, the President took issue with a section that required him to integrate foreign intelligence information in response to the recommendations made by the 9/11 committee. President Bush wrote that he would construe the section… in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

What is noteworthy about this statement is the use of the term, the unitary executive branch. Through 2003, the President has employed this particular term—the “unitary executive”—59 times. He has used it as parts of statements to bills he is signing into law, as parts of executive orders, and to respond to congressional resolutions that do not carry the force of law. President Bush is also the first president to cite this particular term. While the media and indeed most presidency scholars have overlooked its significance, I contend it is important that we understand what the President means by unitary executive and why it carries important political implications. The particular term unitary executive finds its origin in the legal team assembled in the Reagan and Bush I Justice Departments and White House Counsels Office. It draws largely upon the writing of Alexander Hamilton, who advocated in Federalist 70 for energy in the executive. The legal advisors to Presidents Reagan and Bush I pushed for a vigorous defense of presidential prerogatives, and upon leaving their public positions, they mostly took up residence in conservative law schools such as Pepperdine and Northwestern University, as well as in conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and associational organizations such as The Federalist Society.

It is from these positions that many of these former presidential advisors have continued to write and advocate for a theory of raw and aggressive constitutionally-driven presidential power. The unitary executive thesis rests upon the “Oath” and the “Take Care” clauses of Article II of the Constitution. In the first, the president upholds an oath to defend the Constitution, which has meant that a president is not obligated to defend or enforce sections of law that he determines, independently, violate the Constitution of the United States. For example, in 1986 Attorney General Ed Meese spoke at Tulane University in which he argued that “constitutional interpretation is not the business of the Court only, but also properly the business of all branches of government.” This idea was echoed by Justice Scalia, in a 1991 concurring decision in which he wrote:

Thus, it was not enough simply to repose the power to execute the laws (or to appoint) in the President; it was also necessary to provide him with the means to resist legislative encroachment upon that power. The means selected were various, including a separate political constituency, to which he alone was responsible, and the power to veto encroaching laws,… or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional. The second enables the president to insure control over the deliberative process within the executive branch and to exercise a great deal of influence over the vast administrative state, even to the independent regulatory agencies and commissions. To the unitary executive thesis, since the president is the only nationally elected political figure, he is accountable for the way in which policies are made, and thus he should be given control to insure all policies conform to the wishes of his national constituency. What this has meant in practice is the president has controlled information within the executive branch despite the insistence of the Congress to obtain the information, and it has meant the president has influenced regulatory policy in a way that benefits his preferred political constituents.

Hence when President Bush uses the term “unitary executive branch,” he is vigorously advocating an expansive form of presidential power

[omega minimo]

9. "prez influenced policy that benefits preferred political constituents"

"...president has influenced regulatory policy in a way that benefits his preferred political constituents."

"Oh but that's OLD NEWS. We already KNEW that."

[omega minimo]

6. Somebody pleez tell me WHY IS THIS SUBJECT A NON-STARTER?

:eyes:

[Sydnie]

7. I am not sure that it is a non-starter

I think this was just posted on a Saturday ... a warm Saturday in January at that. If we keep it kicked, eventually it will get the attention it deserves.

[omega minimo]

8. This thread links the few threads on Unitary Executive from this week

that I've been able to find. I'm baffled as to why DU doesn't find the whole thing a little bit more

ALARMING

[omega minimo]

10. Link to NYT editorial: "Imperial Presidency"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x142259

[newswolf56]

11. What you have exposed here is another of the doctrinal footings...

upon which Bush is building the framework of an overtly fascist America -- essentially the Federalist version of der führerprinzip, literally "the leader principle": the notion (equally essential to capitalism and fascism) that the leader is a law unto himself.

Critical to understanding the significance of the unitary executive dogma is the fact that it is simultaneously goal, objective, strategy and tactics. In this context the profound deception behind the myth that Bush is "stupid" becomes self-evident -- as I have said before, an exceptionally brilliant political application of the Christian doctrine that states, "the smartest thing the Devil ever did was convince people he doesn't exist."

I think the reason there is so little response to your OP is -- once again -- the increasingly frustrating blinders imposed by American optimism: however dimly, the people recognize the unitary executive doctrine as implicitly fascist (if not implicitly Nazi) and thus moronically reassure themselves, "O that can't happen here."

Sorry I can't say more, OM; your OP deserves a lot better. But I am utterly exhausted from two 16-hour days of doing my tiny part to help cope with the Medicare prescription drug crisis, by which the ever-more-brazenly-genocidal Bush regime has deliberately condemned as many as 6.5 million of the nation's poorest and sickest elderly and disabled people to die for want of medications -- and, as always, the public is too caught up in its obscenely self-indulgent materialism to care: utterly oblivious to the fact that we will all get old, and that unless we are independently wealthy, we are all of us no more than a few paychecks away from abject poverty.

I truly hope people will vote this up. Your research is superb, your analysis incisive, and the OP more than worthy of preservation.


Edit: addition of last paragraph.

[omega minimo]

12. Is there a velvet slipper on that "doctrinal footing"

:evilgrin:
cuz seems it fits up DU's ass so smoothly as to cause barely a stir..............:evilfrown:

Even though it's IN YER FACE once again. Apparent proof of, as you say, "it is simultaneously goal, objective, strategy and tactics" working the " increasingly frustrating blinders imposed by American optimism: however dimly, the people recognize the unitary executive doctrine as implicitly fascist (if not implicitly Nazi) and thus moronically reassure themselves, "O that can't happen here.""

So-- even now that it IS happening here, folks are discussing in denial or "too caught up in its obscenely self-indulgent materialism to care"?

Yesterday a NYT piece appeared which addressed it face on. However, I was reading here that we need different terms, memes or "framing" like "President-For-Life" so that people really get it........ repeatedly the suggestion was made that this concept is too complex for people to get. "Unitary Executive" is an unfamiliar term and people (Hi George Orwell :hi: ) are uncomfortable with unfamiliar terms.

What "checks and balances" isn't enough of a bumper-sticker meme? "Three branches of government" has too many syllables? :wtf: Are people really that ignorant and deluded? We don't like to think so. And at DU, we think it's always those Other People that are that gullible, not US!!!!!!!11

Folks like to theorize and hypotheticalize and projectify and drive into the future the frightening implications of what is happening right now. They like to think that IF Elite-o is on the Supreme Court (that appointed Bush president) and IF W continues as "Unitary Executive" there will somehow be time and opportunity to do something when the time comes at some later date.

Clearly the problem is education-- too many people don't understand the basic principles of the Constitution and the democratic process. Too many people have no concept of "due diligence" and the FACT that if you wait for the symptoms of the disease to become extreme before you respond, your system will not survive.