From time to time I pay attention to discussions about the unitary executive and the presidential signing statement. What I find, more often than not, is the misguided sense of what the unitary executive is and where it came from, and how to best counter it. More often than not, the unitary executive is connected to the imperial presidency (wrong), that it only applies to Republican administrations (wrong), and that the only way to check it is to impeach the president (wrong).
Case in point is this gathering place for liberals talking about what sorts of questions should be asked to the candidates running for the presidency in 2008. All of them talking to one another about bringing down the unitary executive. Yet what happens when everyone believes all the things about the unitary executive that I discussed above--all the wrong ideals concerning what it is about? What happens is you perpetuate the myth, all the while allowing the centralization of power to move forward unchecked and unfettered. And allowing the real culprit--Congress--to escape attention.
First off--if you ask the candidates, in whatever forum, if their administrations will behave like the current on. "We have a right to know if a President Romney or Guiliani...would continue to assert Executive Privilege over questionably legal and national security matters. Whether signing statements will become the norm. What will happen to all of the laws that Bush issued a signing statement for. The Executive Orders that were signed allowing the Vice President to declassify information, or for the President to declassify information at will and without using the historically proper channels. To continue conducting itself in secrecy...We also have a right to know whether a President Edwards, Obama, Clinton (or Richardson or Biden or anyone else) would repeal these Orders and other interpretations of the law. Would President Clinton defer to the judiciary or the legislature in matters that prior Presidents have? Would President Obama issue a signing statement for a law that would be passed by a republican controlled Congress if he didn't agree with it? Would President Edwards have the US abide by the International Criminal Court?"
I will tell you their answer. They will reject all of the claims about using signing statements, executive orders, or declassification of information and promise a White House that respects the Constitution. Remember back in 2000 all of the stump speeches made by Governor Bush? "I will put my hand on the Bible [and] swear to not only uphold the laws of our land [and] I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office which I have been elected, so help me God."
But as I have said before--the key tenets of the unitary executive have become institutionalized inside the executive branch, and the president is a cog within that institution, not above it. Once he or she is elected, they will take hold of the levers of that institution and will behave much the same way as their predecessors. Oh, probably not as brash as the Bush presidency, but still in a way that advances executive prerogatives.
As for impeachment--I am not sure what it will gain. First off, it is doubtful that the process would play out before Bush's time in office expires. Secondly, the American public (despite whether ardent liberals believe they represent the silent majority) has no appetite for impeachment. They didn't in 1998-1999, and they don't know. If the Democrats really want to demonstrate to the American people that they do not know how to govern while in control of Congress, then they should go ahead with impeachment. Instead, they are doing what they should be doing--dragging members of the executive branch before them and pushing legislation that challenges executive branch actions.
But this is what happens when you get groups of like-minded individuals who come together in forums or other online groups to discuss political action. You tend to skew towards the more extreme and outspoken members of the group, something Cass Sunstein called "enclaved deliberation."
