Once again, the one guy is supposed to have all the executive power by law.
We have a Constitutionally mandated unitary executive who is vested with supreme executive authority, these agencies are more akin to limb extenders he's using to help him poke someone in the eye in California from Washington.
The current problem is that the one guy who is required to be supreme in our executive (who once again, is supposed to stand-in for the population as a unified entity), does not actually control that power unless he bends the knee to the agencies and inverts the hierarchy of authority.
That's all Trump is proposing to solve and all Trump would be allowed to solve under the existing Constitution: the vestment of power back into the hands of the one elected official who is supposed to have it by law.
The only ways we get away from that requirement of a unitary executive are an amendment to the Constitution, or complete civil collapse where the current founding documents are thrown out anyway. Anything other than a unitary executive right now is illegal.
If we want to talk about some other structure where there is a larger group vested with executive authority, fine. But that's not the system we currently have, or are supposed to have under our founding charters, and it's a useless argument.
Once again, the one guy is supposed to have all the executive power by law.
We have a Constitutionally mandated unitary executive who is vested with supreme executive authority, these agencies are more akin to limb extenders he's using to help him poke someone in the eye in California from Washington.
The current problem is that the one guy who is required to be supreme in our executive (who once again, is supposed to stand-in for the population as a unified entity), does not actually control that power unless he bends the knee to the agencies and inverts the hierarchy of authority.
That's all Trump is proposing to solve and all Trump would be allowed to solve under the existing Constitution: the vestment of power back into the hands of the one elected official who is supposed to have it by law.
The only ways we get away from that requirement of a unitary executive are an amendment to the Constitution, or complete civil collapse where the current founding documents are thrown out anyway. Anything other than a unitary executive right now is illegal.
If we want to talk about some other structure where there is a larger group vested with executive authority, fine. But that's not the system we currently have, or are supposed to have under our founding charters, and it's a useless argument.