Unitary executive theory

So we either figure out a way to hold on to power indefinitely or we all go into jail.

And that's also where, you know, Unitary Executive Theory, Project 2025, that's all centered on building what we call in our book and what Russians call the power vertical, this sort of streamlined idea of a rule that is that is centered not as much around a democracy, but more of sort of like a streamlined CEO corporate ask model of governance.

And that's really scary and that's really abnormal.

And so the moment I don't necessarily have a prescription for what to do with this, because if I did have a prescription, maybe I would have been running for office somewhere.

And

that's even going to get worse now, now that the unitary executive theory has been moved forward so much with this Supreme Court that seems to forget that's the reason that – The American Revolution started was because people did not want a king.

So, no, that's I'm really glad that you can give that background, because I think so often, you know, throughout especially our professional careers, the notion of people from the United States or from, quote unquote, you know, consolidated democracies going elsewhere to sort of bring experience to other places.

Right.

And so on one side, the Christian nationalists have been kind of a junior partner for another faction.

I'll get to the corporate billionaires that they have been trying to dismantle the administrative state.

These are the ones who are trying to push the unitary executive theory.

They believe that they are the moral stewards that are going to restore family values and America the way it should be.

So all of that can go.

But I have my eye on an even bigger target, David As you know, in the Slaughter case, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, decided that the so-called Unitary Executive Theory means that the president can fire anybody he wants who has been on what we had thought were indepenc- independent commissions and boards, things like the Federal Trade Commission.

The big exception, because they can't bring themselves to do it, is of course the Federal Reserve.

Mind you, there's no legal distinction that they can come up with.

We will start with September 11th and some of the things that Justice Kavanaugh said while reflecting on that day and the White House and some of the reactions to what Justice Kavanaugh said reflecting on that day in the White House, as well as I will pick a fight with David over the redistricting shenanigans in Missouri.

And we've got two articles, one by Andy Smarek on text history and tradition and the three questions judges should ask if they want to do it right, as well as a unitary executive takedown by conservative professor Caleb Nelson, who says, oh, you want to do originalism? Can I introduce you to the necessary and proper clause? And then we've got that second circuit case on the teachers with the pride flags in their classroom.

Is this like Kennedy v. Bremerton? Is it like that bookcase out of the Ninth Circuit? What are these teachers allowed to have in their classroom? And why does this feel like every case we are doing right now? David's got feelings on Garcetti and Pickering again.

All this and more coming up on Advisory Opinions.

Still a thing.

Okay, David, when we get back, I want to talk about two articles, one by Professor Caleb Nelson.

on the Unitary Executive.

And I'm going to ask you whether you're a hard uni, a soft uni, or no uni at all.