[ModernMech]

You're hearing the "unitary executive" theory, which posits that the president is essentially a king. It's based on a purposeful misreading of the Constitution, of course. To arrive at this philosophy, you have to essentially ignore the entire point of the Revolutionary War, the writings of the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, Article I, Article III, Article IV, the Bill of Rights, and the president's oath of office.

There really is no limit to the power, but they say the check is impeachment -- if the people don't like it they can elect a congress that will impeach the president. But in reality it doesn't work that way when the president's party controls congress.

[rayiner]

It's not a "theory," it's simply reading Section 1 of Articles I, II, and III at a 6th grade reading level.

Article I says: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." May Congressional staff exercise legislative powers independently of the Congressmen? Nobody thinks that.

Article III says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." May judiciary branch staff exercise judicial powers independently of Supreme Court Justices and lower-court judges? Nobody thinks that.

Article I says: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." May executive branch staff exercise executive powers independently of the President? My sixth grader could understand that the answer is "no."

There is nothing in here about the president being a "king." It's simply that the President controls the executive branch, in the same way the Congressmen control the legislative branch and the Supreme Court justices control the judicial branch.

[ModernMech]

See, that's what I mean about ignoring all of American history to come to your unitary executive theory.

The Constitution establishes control and checks on that control. "checks and balances". Unitary executive theory is all control, no checks. How does Congress conduct oversight of the executive branch in this scenario?

And you're also trying to do the same thing to me right here. To accept that unitary executive theory isn't about being a king, I'd have to ignore everything the advocates of the theory have said and done. He argued in court that he has absolute immunity to commit crimes, including directing the government to kill his political opponents. You can't argue that in court and then tell me it's not about being a king. That's dictator logic.

Look at the executive right now, he's essentially got the power of a king. He can't be arrested, charged, or investigated. Can commit crimes and hide them. Can direct others to commit crimes and pardon them. Can direct his DOJ to investigate and prosecute anyone he wants. Can control and direct his military without review. Congress can't conduct oversight. Can you explain how the president is now functionally different from a king, and square that with the point of the Revolutionary War?