So what's wrong with a Unitarian Executive? JFK was the first

[omega minimo]

...link in this chain of events.............

Malloy seems to think if Alito is confirmed, it's all over (really).

Please call or write your representatives TODAY and OPPOSE Elite-o's nomination.

:patriot:

[bryant69]

1. I agree we need to oppose Alito

The rest of this post seems esoteric however.

What does JFK have to do with Alito?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[omega minimo]

Good question

[Kazak]

2. Unitarian Executive?

Please explain...

:shrug:

[Cocoa]

5. a play on "unitary executive"

:-)

[Burning Water]

3. I failed to follow

your chain of logic. What does a hypothetical Unitarian executive have to do with anything, let alone Alito? Although I agree we should oppose him. I just wonder how this works out?! And what you are talking about?

[LiberalEsto]

4. What on earth does Unitarian Executive mean?

FYI both John Adams and John Quincy Adams were Unitarian presidents. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington also often attended Unitarian church services.

[RebelOne]

6. I think this is what the poster meant.

But I don't know what it has to do with Alito.

http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/01/right_wing_cons.html

[unblock]

7. and "almost" pun on unitary/unitarian. put on your emily latella hat....

:rofl:

[papau]

8. Alito's '85 memos to give a sheen of legality to any presidential act

Meaning ending checks and balances - and welcome to the King.

[LiberalEsto]

9. It doesn't have anything to do with Unitarians either.

Thanks for posting that.

[Selatius]

12. I thought they were Deists. Unitarians didn't exist then, right?

Thomas Paine, I believe, was a Deist as well.

[omega minimo]

20. The (only) Word of God is the Creation we behold --Thomas Paine

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

DEISM DEFINED

Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: " The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." This common sense approach to God and a spiritual philosophy can not only bring a lasting profound sense of peace and happiness to the individual, but it also has the potential to go light years in eradicating religious fear, superstition and violence.

Frequently Asked Questions about Deism

What is the basis of Deism?    Reason and nature. We see the design found throughout the known universe and this realization brings us to a sound belief in a Designer or God.

If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.?     Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate.

Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it?    Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest is up to Providence.

What's Deism's answer to all the evil in the world?     Much of the evil in the world could be overcome or removed if humanity had embraced our God-given reason from our earliest evolutionary stages. After all, all the laws of nature that we've discovered and learned to use to our advantage that make everything from computers to medicine to space travel have existed eternally. But we've decided we'd rather live in superstition and fear instead of learning and gaining knowledge. It's much more soothing to believe we're not responsible for our own actions than to actually do the hard work required for success.

Deism doesn't claim to have all the answers to everything, we just claim to be on the right path to those answers.

http://www.deism.org/
http://www.deism.org/frames.htm

Deism Defined

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei

Deism (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority. 

Deism notes that we as humans are endowed with the power of reason and an indomitable spirit.  It follows that we are intended to exercise them.  Therefore, skepticism and doubt are not "sins" but rather natural expressions of God's gift of reason. 

Because skepticism and doubt are not sins, Deists view with extreme suspicion any efforts by other humans to claim divine authority, such as claiming to be a "prophet" or citing "sacred scripture" said to be written by alleged prophets (as in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.).  Placing faith in scriptures, prophets, priests, churches, "holy" figures, or traditions is surrendering your personal reason to another source.  Usually, this other source has far less interest in "the state of your soul" as the accumulation of wealth and political power. 

With scripture and revelation removed, all that remains to know God is personal reason and observation of the universe.  Essentially, this is getting to know the artist by studying the artwork.  The only "Word of God" is the universe itself. 

Deism has had many famous advocates throughout history, particularly during the Age of Enlightenment.  Some of the most famous American examples were many of the Founding Fathers of America.  Contrary to the assertions of Christian Fundamentalists today, America was not founded on Christian ideals.  "Nature's God", as invoked by the Declaration of Independence, is a reference to Deism. 

[LiberalEsto]

30. Unitarianism started in the 1500s

As for Jefferson, this material is from the Dictionary of Unitarian Universalist Biography on line:

Jefferson never joined a Unitarian church. He did attend Unitarian services while visiting with Joseph Priestley after his immigration to Pennsylvania and spoke highly of those services. He corresponded on religious matters with numerous Unitarians, among them Jared Sparks (Unitarian minister, historian and president of Harvard), Thomas Cooper, Benjamin Waterhouse and John Adams. He was perhaps most open concerning his own beliefs in his long exchange of letters with John Adams during their late years, 1812-26.

It is probably safe to say that Jefferson first acquired from Joseph Priestley features of his world view and faith which he found confirmed to his satisfaction by further thought and study for the rest of his life.

(snip)

Jefferson found the Unitarian understanding of Jesus compatible with his own. In 1822 he predicted that "there is not a young man now living in the US who will not die an Unitarian." Jefferson requested that a Unitarian minister be dispatched to his area of Virginia.

[deutsey]

33. Unitarian roots go way back to the early centuries of Christianity

Unitarianism was around in the first couple centuries of Christianity before it was quashed by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 (along with other "heresies"). It basically rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and emphasized the humanity of Jesus and the singular nature of God.

[omega minimo]

10. "Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times"

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive_Branch_Decide_0923.html


Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times

Jennifer Van Bergen

The Bush administration has been using an extreme version of an obscure doctrine called the Unitary Executive Theory to justify executive actions that far exceed past presidents' power, RAW STORY has learned. The doctrine assumes, in its extreme form, nearly absolute deference to the Executive branch from Congress and the Judiciary.

According to Dr. Christopher Kelley, a professor in the Department of Political Sciences at Miami University, as of April 2005, President Bush had used the doctrine 95 times when signing legislation into law, issuing an executive order, or responding to a congressional resolution. The President announced in these signings that he would construe provisions in a manner consistent with his “constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.” While the President clearly has the authority to supervise the executive branch, it is unclear how far he might construe this authority under the unitary executive theory.

<>

The Administration’s actions under this doctrine have become so prevalent that even conservatives on the Supreme Court who are sympathetic to the unitary executive theory have felt compelled to reject them. Last year, for example, the Court ruled that the President does not have absolute authority to detain enemy combatants without due process.

<>

The unitary executive doctrine, in its mildest form, claims only that the President has the power to appoint, control, and remove executive officers, as well as the duty to interpret the law as it applies to his office. The doctrine is being used by the Bush Administration, however, to claim the authority to decide what is and what is not the law in areas that some legal experts view as suspect. Michael A. Froomkin, professor at University of Miami Law School, told RAW STORY that some of Bush’s applications of the doctrine are “highly dubious.”

[omega minimo]

11. "this has meant in practice is the president has controlled information.."

"What this has meant in practice is the president has controlled information within the executive branch despite the insistence of the Congress to obtain the information, and it has meant the president has influenced regulatory policy in a way that benefits his preferred political constituents."


http://www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs/2004/09/unitary-executive.html


BlogThis!
Media Watch

Our media was given constitutional protections in order to keep an informed public that would be responsible for maintaining a democratic society. Unfortunately, due to a number of pressures, our media is failing to meet this obligation. This blog will be a place for monitoring the media and for expressing new ideas for research.




Sunday, September 19, 2004
The Unitary Executive 


This past August 5, President Bush signed into law the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act” for 2005. In his statement that accompanied the bill, the President took issue with a section that required him to integrate foreign intelligence information in response to the recommendations made by the 9/11 committee. President Bush wrote that he would construe the section
… in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

What is noteworthy about this statement is the use of the term, the unitary executive branch. Through 2003, the President has employed this particular term—the “unitary executive”—59 times. He has used it as parts of statements to bills he is signing into law, as parts of executive orders, and to respond to congressional resolutions that do not carry the force of law. President Bush is also the first president to cite this particular term. While the media and indeed most presidency scholars have overlooked its significance, I contend it is important that we understand what the President means by unitary executive and why it carries important political implications. The particular term unitary executive finds its origin in the legal team assembled in the Reagan and Bush I Justice Departments and White House Counsels Office. It draws largely upon the writing of Alexander Hamilton, who advocated in Federalist 70 for energy in the executive. The legal advisors to Presidents Reagan and Bush I pushed for a vigorous defense of presidential prerogatives, and upon leaving their public positions, they mostly took up residence in conservative law schools such as Pepperdine and Northwestern University, as well as in conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and associational organizations such as The Federalist Society. It is from these positions that many of these former presidential advisors have continued to write and advocate for a theory of raw and aggressive constitutionally-driven presidential power. The unitary executive thesis rests upon the “Oath” and the “Take Care” clauses of Article II of the Constitution. In the first, the president upholds an oath to defend the Constitution, which has meant that a president is not obligated to defend or enforce sections of law that he determines, independently, violate the Constitution of the United States. For example, in 1986 Attorney General Ed Meese spoke at Tulane University in which he argued that “constitutional interpretation is not the business of the Court only, but also properly the business of all branches of government.” This idea was echoed by Justice Scalia, in a 1991 concurring decision in which he wrote:

Thus, it was not enough simply to repose the power to execute the laws (or to appoint) in the President; it was also necessary to provide him with the means to resist legislative encroachment upon that power. The means selected were various, including a separate political constituency, to which he alone was responsible, and the power to veto encroaching laws,… or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional. The second enables the president to insure control over the deliberative process within the executive branch and to exercise a great deal of influence over the vast administrative state, even to the independent regulatory agencies and commissions. To the unitary executive thesis, since the president is the only nationally elected political figure, he is accountable for the way in which policies are made, and thus he should be given control to insure all policies conform to the wishes of his national constituency. What this has meant in practice is the president has controlled information within the executive branch despite the insistence of the Congress to obtain the information, and it has meant the president has influenced regulatory policy in a way that benefits his preferred political constituents.

Hence when President Bush uses the term “unitary executive branch,” he is vigorously advocating an expansive form of presidential power.

[MuseRider]

13. I agree with Malloy.

I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this as have we all and I believe that if he is confirmed there will be nothing to stop Bush** and his maladministration. I am more worried right now than I ever have been.

[omega minimo]

14. There it is

The topic deserves more consideration, unless people are too freaked and blanked out by the implications. And thank you for kicking the thread. I tried humor, a brief OP, a verbal trick or two in the title-- but I forgot to put "prick" or "balls" in the headline!!!!!!!11

....:evilgrin:
:bounce: :bounce:

An unelected second term president appointed by the Supreme Court nominating his second Supreme Court appointment, who happens to advocate a Unitary Executive. :crazy:

:evilgrin: :hide: :evilgrin: :nuke:

[MuseRider]

15. LOL

you are welcome. This man has the potential to put this country under dictatorship with the gravitas of the Supreme Court. Those who do not think or are able to reason will think it must be OK, the SCOTUS only means good things for this country. The rest of us, well we will be screwed and eventually everyone will know it but it will be way too late to change, at least in my lifetime. Then the big door slams. We worry about so much, wars and cheating and bilking and scandal but this is the big prize. A court that thinks a dictatorship or a monarchy would be the next great idea.

[omega minimo]

17. Strange

that folks like to believe in the document they know nothing about

[MuseRider]

16. BTW

I did get your humor but I am too freaked out to laugh right now. Oh, and KICK!

[omega minimo]

18. Thanks

for pricking the thread :rofl:

[MuseRider]

19. OK, that got a grin.

;)

POOP!

[Octafish]

21. JFK Upheld his Oath of Office.

President John F. Kennedy used every moment in office to make this country a better place and to bring peace to the world.

He never broke the law to do so.

Bush is a disgrace to his office and humanity, a traitor to his country.

[omega minimo]

22. & through speeches and books we have his words-- HIS words

"President John F. Kennedy used every moment in office to make this country a better place and to bring peace to the world."

...not delivered through a wire.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. Well said, Octafish. JFK was very far removed from the concept of....

..."unitarian executive", just as our current form of government is very far removed from a real Democracy.

And yes....Herr Busch is a traitor to this country.

[omega minimo]

24. "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for"

what's left of your country

:patriot:

[omega minimo]

27. Now is the time for all good

[omega minimo]

28. Kicking because Unitary Executive is not on the board--

[omega minimo]

34. Good night and good luck

[hang a left]

25. I couldn't agree with Malloy more.

Alito must go! And I really think we are going to get the fight we want. I do think the Dems will filibuster. There is going to be a showdown, and it is well past time.

[omega minimo]

26. Domestic Spying + Checks and Balances = they got to find their spine

[eve_was_framed]

29. I'm with you both!

[omega minimo]

31. That makes free of us!

:patriot: :evilgrin: :bounce:

[omega minimo]

32. As the Founders spin in their graves.........