A reminder about the "unitary executive" theory

On the President’s Commander-in-Chief or executive Article II authority, and Bush’s radical challenge to the understanding of virtually every expert on the Constitution since the founding of the country – not to speak of the understanding of every American who ever went through a civics class, it’s easy to fall into the narrative that the neo-conservatives have set up on this: that it’s a battle between a President who wants to do everything possible to protect Americans from terrorists, and a Congress full of “politicians” who want to put limits on the President's ability to protect us.

We forget: unless a veto is overridden by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, the President signs the bill into law. There’s something really disgusting about saying, “I don’t have the guts to veto this bill, but even if it says it does, it doesn’t have any effect on my authority anyway.” If he or she refuses to sign the bill, it’s equally disgusting to say, “I don’t care whether the overwhelming majority of the representatives of the people pass a law that tells me what to do, and I don’t care if the Constitution says they are the ones who pass the laws, or that the Constitution says my job is to execute the laws, and I don’t care if the Constitution gives me the right to veto a bill and prevent it from becoming law unless I can’t even get one-third of those representatives of the people (plus one vote) in at least one of the houses of Congress to agree with me, I have the executive right to do what I want anyway whether it violates that law or not. And since I’m the executive with all the executive powers, who is going to stop me?”

Don't forget. It's not the President against Congress, it's either the President against Congress and himself (or herself), or the President against almost everyone.

This is what today’s conservatives stand for: no checks and balances.

These people are going to burn in some hell somewhere, some day.