~>  EC> There was no claim that I am aware of that the executive branch was
~>  EC> supreme over other branches, only that it was supreme as far as its
~>  EC> delegated duties WITHIN the constitutional separation of powers.
 
~> You weren't paying attention to the 'war powers' claimed by Bush minor's
~> administration.  Virtually *everything* was included in the prosecution
of his
~> 'War on Terror,' which has no finite boundaries WRT philosophy, politics,
~> geography or duration - or, FTM, a visible, declared enemy.

The Unitary Executive idea is that all power that exists anywhere in the
executive branch is vested in the President as the head of the branch.  It
means, for example, that any federal law enforcement official (even
Archibald Cox and Kenneth Starr) is answerable to the President.  And all
constitutional war powers are vested in the President.  Your complaint here
is with the scope of those war powers, not with the idea that the branch is
"unitary."

~>  EC> Presidents have been making executive orders for a few centuries.
 
~> Actually they haven't.  Executive orders as we know them today were
~> authorized by emergency legislation passed by congress specifically to
~> deal with the Depression during Roosevelt minor's administration.  I think
~> in 1935.  That particular emergency has been over with for over 70 years
~> but that law has not yet been repealed.
 
~> Prior to that time 'executive orders' were binding only on the executive
~> branch of government, and were not binding on the citizenry at large.
~> Sort of like military regulations, which are binding upon those in the
~> military but not on those outside of it.  If you were not serving *in*
~> the executive branch, those orders were meaningless.

Since the Emancipation Proclamation was issued as an executive order, I
would still feel that they have been around for a while.
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a