Many lawsuits surrounding the new Trump administration are partly about the “single administration” theory. The president thinks that the government should almost control the government’s administration.
As explained in the 2018 post on this topic, a single executive theory is one of some problems that changed my heart in the Trump era. Most of my opposition to the GOP of the Trump era is based on the powerful shift of the positions that were previously held on issues such as immigration, free trade, federalism, media speeches, and the role of the United States in the world. A single administrative theory is an exception. This post explains why a single administrative theory cannot be accepted in a world where the federal government has established and expands data in my 2018 work and provides much greater power than expected in the original meaning.
It is worth emphasizing what the UET (Unitary Execution Theory) is and what it is. UET is theory distribution It is not that theory but execution authority range. Even if all or almost all administrative authority is concentrated in the president’s hands, if the total power is very limited, the scope can still be quite narrow. For example, even if the UET is correct, the power of expenditure is not administrative authority at all, so the Trump administration’s various efforts to consume spending power are still unconstitutional. It belongs to parliament.
Nevertheless, the scope of modern administrative power is very wide because the federal government invades more areas beyond the original meaning of the Constitution. And it damages the UET event.
In some ways, the firstist case of a single executive is attractive at any time. Article 2 of the Constitution “Administrative authority will be given to the US president,” he said. It is not said that administrative authority is divided between the government branch or to bureaucratic agencies that are not related to the president’s control. This strongly suggests that he must have every The authority given to the administration, the same as the other part of the Constitution.
If the administration still used only a relatively narrow range of power at the time of its establishment, it would be very powerful for single management (at least original basis). But unfortunately, the current administrative scope is beyond that. In order to take one noteworthy example, the president now presides over a vast federal law enforcement organization, and in most cases he devoted himself to war with drugs (federal prosecution and lion ratio. convict). With the original meaning of the Constitution and the dominant understanding of the first 150 years of American history, the federal government did not have the authority to prohibit the ownership and distribution of goods. That’s why Constitutional amendment In 1919, in order to establish a federal alcoholic ban, the president controlled the federal war’s wages for drugs, giving him the authority that the federal government could never have at first. Immigration, as James Madison and others pointed out, the original meaning of the Constitution is actually It did not give the federal government a general authority to limit the migration. To the United States.
The same is true for many other power that management is currently wielding. The initial constitution does not give the federal government to regulate almost all aspects of our lives. We had so many federal law that most adult Americans violated federal criminal law at some point in their lives. (I don’t say anything about civil law).
There is nothing original for giving the president a constitutional power. If the “administrative” power is the authority to “enforce” the federal law approved by the original meaning of the Constitution, it does not apply to the authority without such approval. In such cases, the only way to truly implement the original meaning is to completely eliminate such authority from the hands of the federal. But if we can’t do that, there’s no reason to think that giving power to the president is better than staying elsewhere from a unique point of view. Either way, someone in the federal government will wield the authority that should not be under the original meaning of the Constitution.
In many cases, it may be more likely to share more growth than the president’s spirit of the founding father to the president. Similarly, the Congress can also create an independent civil servant who can investigate the management of non -theoretical authority and stay within various legal and ethical constraints. This suggests that the court must support the Constitution of the Law to prevent Trump from dismissing the prosecutor without the cause. In the end, the founders repeatedly warned of excessive concentration in one person’s hand. They will especially see it in the hands of the office where the passengers are selected by the selection of more populists than the founders.
Obviously not everyone is original. Many non -theorists are familiar with the current federal power range and oppose their efforts to make it closer to the original range. But if you are a non -theorist for the scope of federal power, you also have enough reason to be a non -original person for the distribution. Given the tremendous authority of the modern administrative branch, it is dangerous to focus all of that power on one person’s hand. Especially James Madison warning “The realized politicians will not always be dominated,” it looks further ahead of time.
Defenders of UET -Beyond the original range of the Constitution, it is desirable because it often improves political responsibility for power. Even if it’s true, this is not about the text of the Constitution and the original meaning, but the claim of practically desirable. But the argument is vague in itself. The larger the management of the management, the more It is ignorantly ignorant Voters must track more than small parts. In reality, most voters rarely know the functions of most federal agencies. Moreover, the larger the scope of the president’s power, the more difficult to find out how to evaluate the president’s performance in the one area in preparation for the work of other regions (assuming that there is often a change in quality). Therefore, focusing on a vast range of power on one person’s hands is unlikely to do a lot of work to increase responsibility. I discuss the conflict between responsibility and the scope of government power in my book. Democracy and political ignorance: Why is the small government smarter?.
Even if voters know better about the executive agency than I do, the UET does not mean that the responsibility is further developed. Voters who know well can impose it through parliament instead. If you do not like the achievements of independent institutions, you can vote or reduce power to the senator and the representative or to be controlled by the president.
In summary, there is no reason to give everything to the president in the original or other way, at least about the distribution of power that should not be in the hands of the federal government. It does not answer questions about the question of which non -theoretic power should be isolated from the president’s control. But it suggests that the question cannot be answered by reference to the original single administrative theory. In addition, the original people suggest that they should prioritize the scope of management rather than restoring the unit price. In fact, electrons are the only safety (and original) method that enables electrons.
