::::::::
I don’t see anybody asking the hard question: namely, are these actually times that justify the unitary executive? Put aside party, ideology and the matter of whether or not it even should be done and just consider these times to be worthy of the discussion. Are they?
I’m not so sure, and this is why:
Personally, I might consider acting above the law, if it was a matter of life and death. In this, I could get to a place where perhaps a President acting in the same fashion, in similar circumstances, might act above the law on our behalf. In short, it’s possible this could be the right thing to do. That’s what the editorial is all about. Fair enough.
We are then left with two lines of discussion:
-the need for a unitary executive being somehow justified
,and
-these times being worthy of said need?
Again, cast aside party, ideology, issues and let’s just focus on the latter question. Are these really survival times? More importantly, how do we differentiate that from exploitation?
I believe the key lies in the consistency of the message we are given. If we must live under a unitary executive, shouldn’t the justification for that ring absolutely true? If it comes down to survival and the need to act in an immediate fashion, with little regard for the constraints of law, then that need in and of itself more or less forces truth in the matter, does it not?
If we take what we are told at face value, it’s an ugly story. Vital resources are growing scarce, terror is everywhere, etc… That’s all pretty ugly –maybe ugly enough to warrant the unitary actions we’ve seen to date.
This last election cycle saw a Democratic congress elected. This, to me, is our way of asking the question: “Are these really times where we need a unitary executive?” Many want change, but I suspect many more want answers. Answers that justify all we have endured these past few years.
That congress is investigating and finding many inconsistencies. Isn’t that in and of itself enough to render the idea of a unitary executive moot? If there is time for corruption, lies, and manipulations, then there is also time for the law to continue to be a viable and necessary facet of governance. How else can it be?
Being at the brink means survival or not. This does not leave time for other things, by definition. If, these other means and methods are found, they indicate exploitation, not preservation and that’s the point I want you to consider.
Regardless of your party, ideology, faith, etc… Consider what it really means to be living in times where it’s a matter of survival --a tough enough test to warrant casting the law aside to just act. Are we really there, if we’ve time to engage in corruption and manipulation? If there is time for those things, there is time for proper law and debate.
It may well be the idea of a unitary executive could be somehow justified with dangerous times of survival. It’s an interesting debate, but it’s not relevant given the inconsistencies we discover every passing week. Given that, should we not then embrace the law and act accordingly? Does that not warrant a firm denial of the unitary executive power?
I believe it does.
This has serious implications for the current standoff between the White House and Congress. The American People voted for change, they voted to ask the question, they deserve greater consideration than they currently are being given.
