Author Topic: hi could someone explain something about unitary executive theory to me?  (Read 1850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

recursivelyenumerable

  • you might think that; I couldn't possibly comment
  • Senior Member
like what I never got and maybe I'm just dumb or ignorant or w/e, or like flippant, other,,,

oh right!

the question is, if unitary executive, why does the why is it why is it even meaningful that the Senate has to confirm cabinet appointments?

like ... if unitary exec 😎 ... couldn't POTUS just delegate whatever 👾 wants to whatever 🧜 wants. so if the Senate won't confirm a secretary of defense, just make same person the "zecredary of tepenze" internal-only on the executive downlow &&& have them do everything the secretary of defense would while the official Senate-imprimatur'd secdef just sat there stuffing his face!!!!!!!!!

You know???
« Last Edit: September 21, 2018, 01:39:38 AM by recursivelyenumerable »
QED

I'm a Puppy!

  • Knows the muffin man.
  • Senior Member
Re: hi could someone explain something about unitary executive theory to me?
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2018, 01:49:01 AM »
I know.
que

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: hi could someone explain something about unitary executive theory to me?
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2018, 04:08:41 AM »
Unitarianism :yuck

team filler

  • filler
  • filler
Re: hi could someone explain something about unitary executive theory to me?
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2018, 04:10:50 AM »
just use whatever bathroom you want
*****

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: hi could someone explain something about unitary executive theory to me?
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2018, 04:37:16 AM »
This has been done in administrations past.

Actually, it's been fairly common since the creation of the National Security Council and the effect that has had on the Secretary of State. We basically had a figurehead Secretary of State from 1961-1973. Rusk was basically ignored by the Kennedy's who chose to do foreign policy themselves and through a trio of undersecretaries (JFK actually wanted to eliminate the State Department) and McGeorge Bundy, LBJ initially started to bring him in and then came to the same conclusion that he wanted to run foreign policy himself and then Rogers was shoved aside as Kissinger played to Nixon's personality better and eventually Nixon just replaced Rogers officially.

National Security Advisor doesn't have to be approved by the Senate unless you appoint a General and he wants to stay in the military. Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, and both the Rice's also were arguably closer to the President and had more influence on foreign policy than the sitting Secretary of State. (Cyus Vance, Warren Christopher, Colin Powell and John Kerry)

Kerry was arguably unique in that he found a way to work himself out of this situation and play a key role late in the administration. The last two administrations also had Vice Presidents who played fairly prominent roles on foreign policy decision making in Cheney and Biden. Reagan also leaned on H.W. Bush more as his administration went on.

Speaking of some of those names, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ford and H.W. Bush tried to collectively box out Kissinger in a similar way because Ford was too afraid to fire him.

H. W. Bush's failed appointment of John Tower to Secretary of Defense has been considered somewhat similar, as Bush, Baker, and Scowcroft were going to run policy anyway and it was assumed that Colin Powell was going to be the effective voice at the Pentagon. But when Tower was canned by the Senate and Bush turned to Cheney, Cheney was a hardliner about civilian control so started a decades long feud with Powell instead by telling him to be quiet unless asked.

In theory, I'm not sure what prevents a President from not appointing anyone to a Cabinet post or other Senate confirmed position if they don't mind the Acting person. In Bill Clinton's second term he had an acting Secretary of Veteran Affairs for like half of the term. Elaine Duke was acting Secretary of Homeland Security for like six months last year. Obama had Rand Beers as acting Secretary for about three months in 2013.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: hi could someone explain something about unitary executive theory to me?
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2018, 04:38:30 AM »
In theory I suppose you could appoint someone to a lower position in the line of succession that doesn't require confirmation, or who would easily get through confirmation at that lower position. Then just keep firing everyone above them until they're Acting Secretary of Defense. Or you get sued.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: hi could someone explain something about unitary executive theory to me?
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2018, 04:42:41 AM »
This has been done in administrations past.

Actually, it's been fairly common since the creation of the National Security Council and the effect that has had on the Secretary of State. We basically had a figurehead Secretary of State from 1961-1973. Rusk was basically ignored by the Kennedy's who chose to do foreign policy themselves and through a trio of undersecretaries (JFK actually wanted to eliminate the State Department) and McGeorge Bundy, LBJ initially started to bring him in and then came to the same conclusion that he wanted to run foreign policy himself and then Rogers was shoved aside as Kissinger played to Nixon's personality better and eventually Nixon just replaced Rogers officially.

National Security Advisor doesn't have to be approved by the Senate unless you appoint a General and he wants to stay in the military. Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, and both the Rice's also were arguably closer to the President and had more influence on foreign policy than the sitting Secretary of State. (Cyus Vance, Warren Christopher, Colin Powell and John Kerry)

Kerry was arguably unique in that he found a way to work himself out of this situation and play a key role late in the administration. The last two administrations also had Vice Presidents who played fairly prominent roles on foreign policy decision making in Cheney and Biden. Reagan also leaned on H.W. Bush more as his administration went on.

Speaking of some of those names, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ford and H.W. Bush tried to collectively box out Kissinger in a similar way because Ford was too afraid to fire him.

H. W. Bush's failed appointment of John Tower to Secretary of Defense has been considered somewhat similar, as Bush, Baker, and Scowcroft were going to run policy anyway and it was assumed that Colin Powell was going to be the effective voice at the Pentagon. But when Tower was canned by the Senate and Bush turned to Cheney, Cheney was a hardliner about civilian control so started a decades long feud with Powell instead by telling him to be quiet unless asked.

In theory, I'm not sure what prevents a President from not appointing anyone to a Cabinet post or other Senate confirmed position if they don't mind the Acting person. In Bill Clinton's second term he had an acting Secretary of Veteran Affairs for like half of the term. Elaine Duke was acting Secretary of Homeland Security for like six months last year. Obama had Rand Beers as acting Secretary for about three months in 2013.

BIONIC

  • Virgo. Live Music. The Office. Tacos. Fur mom. True crime junkie. INTJ.
  • Senior Member
Re: hi could someone explain something about unitary executive theory to me?
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2018, 06:05:06 AM »
 :piss :piss2
Margs