Sometimes this debate resembles an old SNL Emily Litella sketch: "What's all this about a 'Unitarian executive'?" The key is understanding "executive," not the "unitary" part.
I doing understand this whole argument. No organization public or private can operate without a single person at the top with full executive power. As Pres Truman said “the buck stops here”. I guess that’s too simple and doesn’t allow for academic conferences and useless books and blah blah blah yada yada yada.
Article 3 can't over-rule Article 2, especially when the President acts as Commander in Chief. The Founders did not intend that we be governed by unelected judges.
I doing understand this whole argument. No organization public or private can operate without a single person at the top with full executive power. As Pres Truman said “the buck stops here”. I guess that’s too simple and doesn’t allow for academic conferences and useless books and blah blah blah yada yada yada.
ETs know enough to ask "Take me to your leader."
This is very clarifying
Does Lucretia already disagree?
It would be useful if, in comparison, John steelmanned the strong constitutional executive with a weaker executive.
Article 3 can't over-rule Article 2, especially when the President acts as Commander in Chief. The Founders did not intend that we be governed by unelected judges.