The acquisition clause in Article II states: «The executive branch [of the United States] belongs to a President of the United States of America.» Proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that this language, as well as the Take Care clause («The president should ensure that laws are faithfully enforced… «), creates a «hierarchical and unified executive department under the direct control of the president». [3] This presentation covers an in-depth knowledge of PLURAL EXECUTIVE SYSTEM. Inclusive — Intro, plural executive system that works in Switzerland, its organization, types and many other topics related to the plural executive system The term «unitary executive» was already discussed in the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and referred mainly to a single person holding the position of president, as proposed in the Virginia Plan. The alternative was to have multiple executives or a board of directors, as proposed in the New Jersey plan and promoted by Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph and George Mason. [7] [8] The unitary executive theory is a theory of U.S. constitutional law that states that the President of the United States has the power to control the entire executive power. The doctrine is rooted in Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the «executive power» of the United States. Although this general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine. [1] It can be said that some prefer a «highly unified» executive, while others prefer a «weakly unified» executive. The first group, for example, argues that Congress` power to interfere in decision-making within the executive branch (such as firing executive officials) is limited and that the president can control policy-making by all executive agencies within the limits set by Congress for those agencies. Still others agree that the Constitution requires a unified executive, but see this as harmful and propose its abolition by amending the Constitution. [2] In several states, there are several executive branches in which, unlike the federal government, executive officials such as the lieutenant governor, attorney general, auditor, secretary of state, and others are elected independently of the state governor.
The executive branch of the Texas state government is a classic example of this type of executive structure. Another type of plural executive used in Japan, Israel and Sweden, but not in a US state, is one where a collegiate body forms the executive – but this collegiate body is not composed of several members elected in elections, but is more similar to the US cabinet or the British cabinet in formation and structure. The executive branch is one of them. In this way, we get very important advantages. We can discover from history, reason and experience the security that this provides. It is better to trust the executive if it does not have a screen. Lord, we have a responsibility in the person of our president; he cannot act inappropriately and cannot hide his negligence or inattention; he cannot transfer the burden of his crime to another person; no appointment may be made without his appointment; and he is responsible for every appointment he makes. We secure powerfully. We know exactly what many executives are. We know that there is no strength, no decision or no responsibility in them. Moreover, this officer is placed high and far from despicable; but not a single privilege is attached to his character; Far from being above the law, it is accessible to them in its private nature as citizens and in its public character through impeachment. [9] Subsequent cases such as Humphrey`s Executor v.
The United States (presidential dismissal of certain types of officers), United States v. Nixon (executive privilege) and Bowsher v. Synar (control of executive functions) have relaxed the scope of the doctrine in both directions. Scalia J.A., in his solitary dissent in Morrison v. Olson, argued for unlimited power to remove the president from all persons exercising executive powers, which, in his view, included independent counsel; The court disagreed, but later addressed Scalia`s position in Edmond v. United States. [14] The Texas state bureaucracy has many state bodies, commissions, councils, and committees. In addition, several large agencies within the plural executive have administrative and advisory functions. In Myers v.
In 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president had the exclusive power to remove executive officials and did not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body. The court also wrote: Some scholars even reject the «weakly unified» theory and advocate the creation of a plural executive, as in the many state governments that separately elect an attorney general. [2] However, these researchers recognize that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to eliminate the executive from federal unity. Texas divided the power of the governor at the end of reconstruction and dispersed executive power by creating a plural executive power. This section deals with the texas plural executive branch. The ordinary functions of public officials prescribed by law are subject to the general administrative control of the President by virtue of the general grant of executive power to the President, and the President may properly control and direct their interpretation of the statutes according to which they act in order to ensure the uniform and uniform application of the laws that article 2 of the Constitution clearly provides for in order to confer general executive power solely on the President. transmit. [13] These other parts of the Constitution include the broad powers granted to Congress. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to legislate, which the President must then enforce if these laws are constitutional. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, known as the necessary and appropriate clause, grants Congress the power to «enact all laws necessary and appropriate to enforce all powers conferred by this Constitution on the Government of the United States or in a department or official thereof.» The Constitution also gives Congress the power «to issue rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces.» The unitary executive theory can only be legitimate to the extent that it allows Congress to exercise its constitutional powers while ensuring that the president can do the same.
The general principle that the president controls the entire executive branch was initially rather harmless, but extreme forms of theory have developed. Former White House adviser John Dean explains, «In its most extreme form, the unified executive power theory may mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the president what to do or how to do it, especially when it comes to national security issues.» [4] At the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention in 1787, James Wilson emphasized the benefits of a single chief executive, including greater responsibility, strength, determination, and accountability: Alexander Hamilton later emphasized that the Constitution grants executive and legislative power in different ways, with the legislative powers of Congress expressly limited to what «is granted here, » as opposed to executive powers, which are not expressly limited by a count. Hamilton wrote: According to law professors Lawrence Lessig and Cass Sunstein, «No one denies that the authors created a unified executive in a certain sense; the question is in what direction. Let`s distinguish between a strong version and a weak version. [1] In its strong or weak form, the theory would limit the power of Congress to remove control of executive power from the president. The «strongly unified» theory sets stricter limits for Congress than the «weakly unified» theory. [1] At his confirmation hearing to become an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Samuel Alito appeared to support a weaker version of the unitary executive theory. [5] Contrary to the claims of some authors,[20] the first administration to refer explicitly to the «unitary executive» was not that of President George W. Bush.
For example, Ronald Reagan issued a statement of signature in 1987 stating, «If this provision were interpreted differently to compel the president to obey the orders of a subordinate, it would clearly constitute an unconstitutional violation of the president`s authority as head of a unified executive.» [21] David Barron (now a federal judge) and Marty Lederman also criticized the strong version of the unitary executive theory. They recognize that there are compelling reasons for a unified executive within the armed forces. [16] However, they argue that the Constitution does not provide for such a strong unified executive outside the military context, and they argue that the Commander-in-Chief clause would be superfluous if the same type of unified presidential power were to result from the general constitutional provision that confers executive power on the president. [17] Section 4 of the Texas Constitution describes the executive division (branch) of Texas. Texas uses plural executive power, which means that the governor`s power is limited and distributed among other government officials. In other words, there is not a single government official in Texas who is solely responsible for the Executive Branch of Texas. Meanwhile, federalists like James Madison have pointed to an added benefit of a unified executive. In Federalist No.
In 51, he wrote that an undivided executive would strengthen the executive`s ability to resist legislative encroachments: «Since the weight of legislative authority requires that it be divided [into branches] in this way, the weakness of the executive, on the other hand, may require that it be strengthened. [11] Unlike the modern constitutions of many other countries, which determine when and how a state of emergency is declared and what rights can be suspended, there is the United States.