Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
Aug 11, 2026 · 58 min · 13 segments
Does the president have the sole and unitary authority to wield all tasks inside to the executive branch by the Constitution? Here to talk about this important topic are two excellent scholars and…
John YooGuest
George WillGuest
Henry OlsenHost
Uh, so the unitary executive theory, I think, uh, when Alexander Hamilton sets it out, I think it's just a straightforward textual theory, which is why I think it also appealed, uh, to the great Justice Antonin Scalia, who set the theory out also in his dissent in Marson versus Olsen, and eventually has won the day, I would say, at least for now, in the Supreme Court, which just issued a case called Trump versus Slaughter, where I think it fully embraced the unitary executive theory.
And it, it briefly stated it's this: the Constitution grants all executive power in the federal government to the president.
One of those duties that the president also has is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
The essence of the executive power, uh, is twofold: to take care the laws are faithfully executed and to protect the nation's security.
And so in order to fulfill those duties, the president has to be able to command subordinate executive officials, anyone who assists him or her in carrying out federal law.
Because, and this is the interesting lacuna in the Constitution, the Constitution doesn't actually require any lower executive branch official to obey the president.
So you could have had a government that is somewhat like the New Deal Constitution, uh, respo- created by FDR and the Congress, where you have all these agency heads running around, executing the law as they see fit, without any kind of central unifying force.
But if the president can't order them to carry out the duty of carrying out federal law, how does he fulfill his ultimate constitutional duty? And so the Supreme Court has said, Alexander Hamilton has said, it must be through the power to remove.
The power to remove lower court off-- lower, I'm sorry, lower executive branch officials is the way that the president creates a unified policy and carries it out, which allows him to fulfill his constitutional duties.
Now, the executive power is not just the power to run the human resources department.
A lot of, I think, what the dispute amongst conservatives involves is, is there any substance as well? And this, the Supreme Court has not touched as much.
Does Article Two's grant of, quote unquote, "the executive power" to the president convey, for example, unenumerated authorities in the Constitution? This also was the issue that confronted Alexander Hamilton right at the beginning of the Constitution.
The French Revolution actually called on the United States to decide how would we interpret the treaties with France.
Alexander Hamilton says, and I think this is the logic we've, uh, repeated ever since, "The executive power has always included the power to set foreign policy.
Therefore, when the Constitution makes that grant to the president, it implicitly granted the president the right to decide, are we gonna be friendly towards Iran? Are we gonna be hostile to Iran?" George Washington adopted Hamilton's theory, which are set out in what they're called the Helvetius-Spinozist debates.
We've always assumed presidents set foreign policy ever since then Lastly, the unitary executive theory, which I think has really been upheld by the court now, is to stop Congress from trying to create independent power centers within the executive branch.
The president has to be able to use the removal power to control them and use this substantive authority, uh, in the executive power clause to be able to govern them and have them all act cooperatively in achieving a unified executive agenda.
Uh, so the unitary executive theory, I think, uh, when Alexander Hamilton sets it out, I think it's just a straightforward textual theory, which is why I think it also appealed, uh, to the great Justice Antonin Scalia, who set the theory out also in his dissent in Marson versus Olsen, and eventually has won the day, I would say, at least for now, in the Supreme Court, which just issued a case called Trump versus Slaughter, where I think it fully embraced the unitary executive theory.
And it, it briefly stated it's this: the Constitution grants all executive power in the federal government to the president.
One of those duties that the president also has is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
The essence of the executive power, uh, is twofold: to take care the laws are faithfully executed and to protect the nation's security.
And so in order to fulfill those duties, the president has to be able to command subordinate executive officials, anyone who assists him or her in carrying out federal law.
Because, and this is the interesting lacuna in the Constitution, the Constitution doesn't actually require any lower executive branch official to obey the president.
So you could have had a government that is somewhat like the New Deal Constitution, uh, respo- created by FDR and the Congress, where you have all these agency heads running around, executing the law as they see fit, without any kind of central unifying force.
But if the president can't order them to carry out the duty of carrying out federal law, how does he fulfill his ultimate constitutional duty? And so the Supreme Court has said, Alexander Hamilton has said, it must be through the power to remove.
The power to remove lower court off-- lower, I'm sorry, lower executive branch officials is the way that the president creates a unified policy and carries it out, which allows him to fulfill his constitutional duties.
Now, the executive power is not just the power to run the human resources department.
A lot of, I think, what the dispute amongst conservatives involves is, is there any substance as well? And this, the Supreme Court has not touched as much.
Does Article Two's grant of, quote unquote, "the executive power" to the president convey, for example, unenumerated authorities in the Constitution? This also was the issue that confronted Alexander Hamilton right at the beginning of the Constitution.
The French Revolution actually called on the United States to decide how would we interpret the treaties with France.
Alexander Hamilton says, and I think this is the logic we've, uh, repeated ever since, "The executive power has always included the power to set foreign policy.
Therefore, when the Constitution makes that grant to the president, it implicitly granted the president the right to decide, are we gonna be friendly towards Iran? Are we gonna be hostile to Iran?" George Washington adopted Hamilton's theory, which are set out in what they're called the Helvetius-Spinozist debates.
We've always assumed presidents set foreign policy ever since then Lastly, the unitary executive theory, which I think has really been upheld by the court now, is to stop Congress from trying to create independent power centers within the executive branch.
The president has to be able to use the removal power to control them and use this substantive authority, uh, in the executive power clause to be able to govern them and have them all act cooperatively in achieving a unified executive agenda.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.