Talk:Unitary executive theory

Lead should summarize criticism

@Just10A, I noticed you removed a lot of well-source critiques of the theory (it seems to have more criticism than support on balance and the lead should reflect that) and want to make sure that the LEDEFOLLOWSBODY.
We also should not be removing 'see also' wikilinks unless they are already in use in the article.
I also object to this being labeled as an 'academic article' as a reason not to include criticism from journalists who write for reliable publications. Superb Owl (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

1.) The edits were overall so politicized and over-incendiary that they do not even begin to approach NPOV.

2.) It is an academic topic. Many of the cites were by and large poor or miscited, with many of the sources not conforming to WP:RS.

3.) The "see also" editions have 0 standing, and the portion of the page "democratic backsliding" you are linking to for support was just recently edited to include it by yourself and before had no reference of UE theory.

4.)As nicely as I can possibly say it, a significant portion of the edits clearly reflect someone with a incomplete education/understanding of a complex academic topic.

5.) You are purporting yourself as retired.

While my edits did include some improvements and copyediting, the majority was a reversion to the old, much better done form. Particularly in the lead. Protocol dictates that controversial info be removed and page is reverted to earlier state in the event of debate. As a result, it will be put back. Just10A (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like we agree to disagree on quite a bit here.
1) This was a faithful summary of the sources
2) Which sources do not conform to WP:RS? All are perennial or academic sources from peer-reviewed academic journals with decent citation counts
3) If you disagree with that section on that article, please feel free to post on the talk page and discuss it. I see no issue with that section.
4) That's not a very nice thing to say
5) I'm not sure whether I have update my user page is relevant Superb Owl (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Specific differences to address (I propose restoring these edits)

1) describing the theory as 'controversial' in the lead (will update this list with the citations making that claim)
2) mentioning the Opinions Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause in the lead
3) context of this theory in other democracies and states within the US in the lead
4) Erasure of Daniel Birk critique of King of England claims
5) Erasure of critiques in Perennially reliable media outlets of the theory from the article and the lead (The BBC, The Guardian, The Economist (op-ed), and The New Republic)
6) See also to section of Democratic backsliding in the United States that discusses the Unitary Executive Theory Superb Owl (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I can answer most of your questions from the last 2 posts. I think most of the issues we are having stem from a few fundamental misunderstandings:

1.) The unitary executive theory ≠ the strong version of unitary executive theory. The vast majority of controversy and criticism is solely concerning the strong version. The theory as a whole is not controversial at all. A quote from the article already puts it nicely, so I'll just quote it "No one denies that in some sense the framers created a unitary executive; the question is in what sense. Let us distinguish between a strong and a weak version." I can tell you that is the current state of academic consensus. Essentially all of the criticisms are regarding just the strong version. So, when you call the theory as a whole controversial, or say it is authoritative, or all these other things, that is—for lack of a better term—simply false. Furthermore, the lede is about the theory as a whole, which is why all of the more detailed criticisms that only concern a single interpretation A.) are false if applied to the theory as a whole, and B.) don't belong in the lede at all.

2.) There is no intrinsic issue with mentioning the Opinion clause of Necessary and Proper clause. But the way it was earlier used was confusing and incomplete to the point of being borderline incorrect. A.)Both of these clauses on their face do not really limit presidential power. One is just something stating what a president "may," but is not bound to do, and the other is a clause from a totally different article which is about the powers of congress. B.) The usage of the clauses in their previous state again run into the same problems as my previous paragraph: Any conflict the clauses may have only apply to the strong version of the theory. So again, it doesn't inherently apply to the theory as a whole, which is uncontroversial. If the clauses were included properly, however, as they are later in the article, that is of course perfectly acceptable. As it stands however, inclusion in the lede seems unlikely for the reasons already stated.

3.) Again, A.) this only applies to the strong version, same issues as paragraph one. B.) the earlier statement(s) presuppose "similar" laws and "similar" democracies. Neither one of those are a given. The U.S. has a unique civic structure and any parallels are conjecture and should be classified as such, as they are later in the article.

4.) I think this brings up the next misunderstanding: Law review articles are not peer-reviewed journal articles in the traditional sense, and even if they were, WP:Scholarship mandates that great care should be taken. Not used excessively. However, they aren't peer reviewed journals in that sense. They do not match any category under WP:Scholarship, but the closest would be to "Dissertations" or "Predatory Journals," both of which reflect significant criticism. Law review articles are half the time little more than political op-eds, and the other half written by non-scholars. The Birk article is likely both, and while not totally barred from admission, it has a very high bar to meet that I, or really any objective scholar in my opinion, do not think it does.

5.) Same issues as paragraph 1. The majority of these publications are political, and are referring to the strong version of the theory, even when half the time they don't even describe the strong vs weak theory, because they are political instead of high-quality pieces. Either way, they probably don't belong at all, but definitely not in the lede, since it doesn't apply to the theory as a whole.

6.) Already addressed this, the backsliding article section was added recently by you. There is not a hint of such a connections on the pages prior to you adding it. As already addressed in paragraph 1, there is no intrinsic conflict between the traditional version of UE theory and checks and balances. It is totally in line with the framers vision, and thus, does not have any connection with "democratic backsliding" as the checks and balances of said democracy aren't being intruded upon in the first place.

I hope this cleared up any misconceptions. It's a very advanced academic legal topic, that has been only recently politicized in part. Just10A (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

1) (updated) This article does not define or distinguish between the two distinct options and in reality this is a spectrum of opinion. There is not one strong and one weak option, just stronger and weaker (in my reading of the sources). The common usage of the term is the strong version of the theory, which is why most discussion seems to be in reaction to that version.
2) I was simply using it as what opponents cited. Does not mean their intepretation is correct. Think it is worth including.
3) I do not understand this point - of course all countries are different, but that is discussed at-length in the review article and I think the lead should reflect the summary of the international and state-level context
4) (updated) While a law review is not peer-reviewed, they undergo an editorial process with fact-checking, especially for the more reputable law review journals. Also, the case for using them still seems strong per WP:Scholarship if I'm reading this correctly "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper."
5) (updated) Some are more political than others but this is a political article. Not sure how that is a disqualifier. BBC is hardly political. Will include in the criticism for now barring some evidence beyond your opinion that a perennially reliable source cannot be cited in this article. This article is not titled "Academic discussion of the unitary executive theory" and should include a range of reliable sources as a result
6) (updated) Lack of a connection before I started editing is not proof that there is no connection. A half-dozen sources discuss democracy implications and democratic backsliding specifically of this theory. I am going to restore this edit because clearly it is well-supported by many sources in both articles. If you disagree with the validity of specific sources, given how many are included, it would be preferable to flag them individually rather than another mass reversion or removal. Superb Owl (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Definition

Ok, it seems like a lot of the back-and-forth @Just10A and I have been having traces back to how to define 'unitary executive theory.'

It appears to be a spectrum of opinions on how strong the president should be. A recent article I read defined the minimum version as "at a minimum, the President should be able to remove all executive-branch officers, including the heads of independent regulatory agencies, at any time and for any reason." This is hardly a universally-accepted idea. Superb Owl (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like some of the disconnect could be coming from the fact that I have been reading much more recent sources that seem to make less of a distinction between weak and strong. I have started adding some of those and scaling back the use of sources from the 90's to define a term that did not enter popular discourse until the 2000s. Hopefully with more and newer sources we can come to a better definition and address some of the issues accordingly, but for now, there seems to be the idea that the theory is associated with a stronger version than exists today while opponents wants less executive power than exists today. Superb Owl (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: Sunstein & Vermeule (2021) describes that as the minimum for the strongly unitary view of the presidency – not as the minimum for the weakly unitary view. (There is, however, a working paper from John C. Harrison arguing that Congress must give some tool to ensure presidential control of executive policy-making, though not necessarily removal.) The strong view is what is normally described as "the unitary executive theory" in scholarship.

During the Bush II years it became popular to describe basically every assertion of inherent executive authority as being "the unitary executive theory". In reality, things like Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) (recognizing inherent presidential power to recognize foreign nations against the view of Congress) are about the breadth of (inherent) executive power rather than the unitariness of executive power. SilverLocust 💬 00:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, that may be part of why this has been confusing is there is not a consistently applied definition and the term is (most often?) used as shorthand for the strong theory.
My instinct is to describe this article from the standpoint of the strong theory if that is how most reliable sources describe the theory, while mentioning that some authors distinguish between stronger and weaker versions. Curious to get definitions from people other than Cass Sunstein (a notable advocate for expanded presidential power when at OIRA) Superb Owl (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the footnote for the quote I added earlier on 'at a minimum...': See CALABRESI & Y OO , supra note 1, at 3-4; see also, e.g., Neomi Rao, Removal: Necessary and Sufficient for Presidential Control, 65 A LA. L. REV . 1205, 1225 (2014) (asserting that “[f]or adequate constitutional control of execution, the President must have the possibility of directing discretionary legal duties, even those assigned to other officers,” and thus must be able to remove all executive officers, including the heads of independent agencies); John Harrison, Addition by Subtraction, 92 VA. L. REV . 1853, 1859-62 (2006) (characterizing executive-branch officers as “agents” of the President whom the President must be able to remove if they do not retain his trust); cf. Morrison, 487 U.S. at 724 n.4 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (contending that the President must have “plenary power to remove [all] principal officers,” but that inferior officers can be made “removable for cause” so long as their appointing officers can dismiss them for “the failure to accept supervision” (emphasis omitted)). Superb Owl (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

adding this from a 2024 chapter to help with any future discussions, "There is no one canonical account of the unitary executive theory, though various academics have provided their own characterizations of it." Superb Owl (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Constitution paragraph in the lead

@Just10A, I have been reverting your edits here because they seem to be pushing one interpretation, without sourcing (secondary sourcing would be ideal that summarizes the interpretations of the field and not just one author) that this is the only interpretation of that clause. There are sources throughout the article that show a range of interpretations of aspects of the constitution and Article II in particular, some of which I added to that paragraph for more context. Making definitive statements about how a clause should be interpreted is also very hard to do so in a WP:Verifiable way, hence the softer language around 'proponents interpret' instead of 'this clause solely vests...' which makes certain implications that are not universally accepted by reliable sources. Superb Owl (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not pushing one interpretation. It is describing the position of the theory, and is supported by the sources. Further, as explained in the edit, this was included in the lede of the article before it was taken out by you. Just10A (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

What sources? Because the source at that sentence specifically says, "Unitarians fixate on the wording of Article II’s 'Vesting' clause (versus the wording in Articles I and III)' Superb Owl (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Unitarians are people who adhere to the theory. The sentence is describing what the theory maintains. Not what is necessarily so. Furthere, several of your later additions trying to added context are incorrect and need to be amended. Just10A (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are phrasing the sentence as if that is what the constitution says definitively. My phrasing specifically clarified that this was the interpretation of proponents. These claims and accusations need to be backed up with some sources. For now, I am reverting them and posting on your talk page. Superb Owl (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm afraid that just isn't supported by the text. The sentence very clearly begins with "the theory is based on" That is not controversial, and is very clearly supported by the sources. I can add "an interpretation" but even then thats a little redundant given the beginning of the sentence. Just10A (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am picking up a book today on the theory and should be able to resolve this in a few hours one way or another. For now, I appreciate you going along with the more cautious wording while verifying the claim Superb Owl (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to do so. I doubt that a single unknown book is going to resolve basic fundamental aspects of the lede, but of course you can research the subject as much as you like. All changes done are in line with sources discussed so far. Just10A (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For now, I left your wording for these first two sentences and flagged it with inline flags for more citations and one pointing to this discussion Superb Owl (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You added a "disputed - discuss tag" as well as a first "citation needed" tag. I will address both, as both are not needed and I can probably simultaneously address some of your earlier expressed concerns as well.

Disputed - Discuss tag

The sentence currently reads:

"The theory is based on an interpretation of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, which solely^{[disputed – discuss]} vests "the executive Power" of the United States in the president, to make the case for power over the executive branch."

The "disputed" tag is not needed because, quite simply, the content of that sentence is not disputed. The fact that specifically Section 1 of Article Two of the US Constitution vests power solely in the president and no one else is not disputed. We're not talking about the the Constitution as a whole, not broader American political theory, but specifically Section 1 of Article Two, particularly Executive Vesting clause. That's what the sentence is saying. I've already cited the Executive vesting clause before, but I'll paste it here. It reads:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:[...]

Again, the sentence in the wiki page isn't talking about the Constitution as a whole, or broader political theory regarding the branches, but specifically Section 1 of Article Two. Read the first sentence. The sentence clearly states that the executive Power shall be vested in a President it mentions the president solely and no one else. With that in mind:

1.) Do you, personally, derive anyone being vested with Executive power other than the president from Article II section 1? If so, who? The answer is clearly not.

2.) Can you produce any sufficiently citable scholarly source that says that Section 1 of Article Two vests executive power in anyone other that the president to the point that there is a consensus dispute? Again, not the broader constitution as a whole, not philosophical theory, but specifically Section 1 of Article Two, because that is what the sentence is referring to. Again, the answer is no. I've at least seen nothing that says that in research. As the lead later discusses, critics focus on how the language of the Executive Vesting clause must be BALANCED with the rest of the constitution/checks and balances, not that the vesting clause simply doesn't say that. The content of specifically the vesting clause/Section 1 of Article Two solely vesting power in the president is not in dispute. Further, it is already supported by the available citations in the article.

In fact, I'd be surprised if you could find a SINGLE reputable source that states that the cited language above vests executive power in anyone other than the president. Much less enough to say there is a disputed consensus. Again, as the article already alludes to, all criticism is derived from other parts of the constitution/ political theory, not Section 1 of Article Two, which is all the disputed sentence is referring to.

"Citation Needed" Tag

As already discussed above, that sentence doesn't particularly need a cite as its evident from already cited material and is pretty much the basis for UE theory as a whole. I could of course just cite the US Constitution Executive Vesting Clause, even though its a primary source, as its only being used to establish a basic fact that is readily apparent by its language, doing so would be in line with MOS:LAW, but I think that would be a little mundane. I could also just cite a basic article not about UE theory, but just a "what does the vesting clause say" article, but again, I think thats probably pedantic and not needed considering the state of the article already. Just10A (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The dispute is not the president, it is the use of 'solely' or 'singularly', which are not terms found in either the primary source or in the secondary source you added. They just are also not necessary and possible WP:Weasel words. That is a core part of the disagreement is that they imply something that is not unambiguous.
The vesting clause is ambiguous in what it means. By framing it as vesting vs. Article I and III, you are crowding-out real questions about what vesting means. I added a citation arguing that it plausibly could be distinguishing between an executive council and a president while not making any claims on the strength of presidential power. This is why that language is important. Some critics do come to the conclusion you stated that they are in tension, but not all, and that is why I want to reflect the viewpoint of some critics who dispute the vesting clause interpretation. Superb Owl (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are totally incorrect.

1.) The exact terms do not have to be in the sources. It's not a direct quote. Statements in the source, as well as the primary document itself, support the use of the words, and you have produced nothing to dispute that interpretation of Section 1 of Article Two. Such statements include:

"this Vesting Clause establishes an executive office to be occupied by an individual.

"Few could disagree that the Vesting Clause establishes a unitary executive in the sense that it creates a single executive President.

"by “vesting” powers in a singular executive, does the Vesting Clause establish that the President may exercise those powers by himself, without interference by Congress, and, concomitantly, does it give the President the authority to direct and supervise any federal official involved in such matters?"

(this statement is asking a question, but is recognizing the singuarlity of the vesting clause as a premise to the question)

2.) As already cited above: the source does use that wording. Until you removed the source. The source is written by scholars, and published by an institution devoted to the study of the Constitution of the United States. You are completely incorrect.

I am completely reverting your changes, and your statement(s) are so egregious and contrary to clear wikipedia guidelines that you will be reported if such behavior continues. Just10A (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I mistook the constitution center for another institution when I first removed it. It seems reliable enough. I do not understand splitting it out from the previous sentence as it seems redundant but I guess it does little harm as-is if we leave it for now. I have never disagreed about it being a singular executive, I have disagreed about the amount of emphasis being put on singular or singularly, etc. It's a difference of phrasing, not fact. We also have the conflicting definitions issue which has not been resolved. Some sentences are written about stronger versions and others weaker versions. That disconnect seems to continue to cause friction in edits. Superb Owl (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY

@Just10A, all of the additions I have made are clearly reflected in the body and I invite you to do the same before adding interpretations in the lead. Also, just because a source makes a claim, that claim needs to be clearly spelled-out in the text in the body before added to the lead. Ideally, given this is a controversial topic, with a quotation embedded in the citation for easy reference for those who may not have access and are just joining us. Superb Owl (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any changes I have made to the lead that are not reflected in the body. I rarely change both at the same time because usually the content is already included in the body and only needs to be added to the lead. Just10A (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Just10A, please review WP:Original research, WP:secondary sources, and Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone - the superlatives and added emphasis are not necessary, supported by strong, reliable secondary sources (especially important in the lead paragraph) and are not encyclopedic Superb Owl (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

1.) The additions do not exclusively rely on primary sources. They are well supported by the cited secondary sources as well.

2.) Primary sources may be used for establishing basic facts and for things like direct quotes. That is what I have used them for. Further, court opinions are not traditional "primary sources," which wikipedia mainly focuses on things like scientific experiments when describing primary sources.

In summary, all additions added are well cited by both primary(only court opinions,) and secondary sources, in ways similar to other Wikipedia legal pages. The fact that several of your original reversion edits were based on blatant falsehoods (such as saying "this quote should be discussed in the body before being 'shoehorned' into the lead," while that exact quote was verbatim in the body) speaks for itself.

These are good faith edits which are clearly well sourced and in line with wikipedia policy. Again, you are more than welcome to proceed to arbitration, because I'm positive all or most of the edits will easily pass. Just10A (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Not all of your edits are supported by secondary sources (though some are). I tried pointing some out with inline citations to be helpful but did not seem to do much so I removed them
2) I may have overstepped with that comment about it not being discussed in the article as I did not remembering that it was discussed in the body, however I will say that the summary did not reflect a consensus and needed some work and so it felt like shoehorning. I have been working to expand the discussion around the two recent supreme court cases in the body so that we can make sure the lead accurately reflects that and come to more of a consensus (I agree that it is worth including to some degree). Superb Owl (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Further, I invite you to review Template:Cite court and MOS:LAW. There is great precedent for citing legal cases in this way because they are a unique type of source. So much so, that there's literally an entire category of wikipedia citation for it.

"Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority." Just10A (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for citing MOS:LAW - that is helpful to read and I see that there is more of a place for these citations than I thought. However, what makes me uncomfortable with the usage so far is that you seem to be making interpretations from citations that a reasonable person could interpret differently. That is WP:OR and that is the issue I have had with many of the primary sources you have used thus far. This is a complex issue and it should not be hard to find reliable secondary sources (I will keep working to find more to add) that helps to interpret what the ruling does or does not do with regard to precedent and Unitary executive theory. Superb Owl (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)