Skip to main content

View Diary: What A "Unitary Executive" Means - President As King (243 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Leahy tried to pin him down (none)
    I saw Leahy's questioning excerpted during the lunch break, and he asked a lot of questions about the warrantless eavesdropping and the torture signing statement, and Alito said that the burden of proof would be on the executive to explain why it was ok to violate the law.

    However, the question of whether it is Constitutional would, I suppose, depend on what limits you believe the Constitution places on the executive branch, so the whole thing takes us in one big circle, doesn't it?

    •  It's odd for Alito to say that. (none)
      Who, exactly, would this U. E. even have to be explaining itself to in the first place? I guess this means I should motivate myself to actually read a transcript of the proceedings. :)

      Your latter statement is accurate. As another poster further up this thread said, there is no ultimate, independent authority out there watching over how we handle the Constitution. That means we should appoint people who believe the government should not be allowed to break the law. I think the executive being required to follow federal laws passed by Congress is a valid interpretation of the Constitution. If only the federal government agreed with me!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site