Talk:Unitary executive theory/Archive 1

message: After seeing some of the criticism I have some questions for Simon Dodd:
:1 How is it you get to pick what sources can be trusted? Are you suggesting we limit ourselves to Fox News?
:2 Regarding your problem with "boundless." If the President is the primary source of power, even capable of ignoring Congress or the letter of the law, what then is the exact boundary to his "authority?" More to the point, what can't he do in his role as Commander-in-Chief when his sole duty, according to the Constitution, is to protect US citizens. What law can he not break? 
:3 How is it you get to pick what to include from what critics say? Clearly, the paragraph you object to is based upon comments made by legal scholars. I know, it is not Fox News, but to deny mentioning their analysis, amounts to censoring information you feel should not be shared. Once again if the information is correct, you do not get to delete it on the grounds of having another POV than the source.
:4 If you accept the contents is correct what is the problem? What you call POV, is merely what sceptics advance as another interpretation of the theory advocated.
:5 What is terrorism? This is such a difficult definition, that it can be used for many things. As we already have learned, because apparently animal and human rights groups have been investigated under the current anti-terrorism laws. If many things qualify as terrorism, the war on terrorism could last indefinitely. Effectively granting the President war powers untill ...  when? 
Please refrain from suggesting bias, simply because you want the article cleansed of dissenting views. As you are well aware the sources are numerous and, contrary to your evidently erroneous assumption, they are also reputable. --Nomen Nescio 06:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Norman, I think you're having a serious misunderstanding of my point. As I said in my edit history, my problem is not with the substance of that section, but the style in which it was (and to an extent, still is) written: the choice of words and phrasing. I'm not suggesting that the same . Of course Fox News is not a trustworthy news source, in the same way that Free Republic, Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground are, without exception, untrustworthy sources; they should never be cited, period. They aren't news sources, they are propaganda outlets for their respective parties. This has nothing to do with my being a Republican and your being a Democrat; I have no dog in this race, particularly since I seriously can't imagine anyone with a narrower view on the powers of the executive than I have. I'm not saying that "the article cleansed of dissenting views," I'm saying that you must present them - that we must write this article - in a NPOV tone, though, and you must cite neutral, or at least reputable, sources - yes, the WaPo is a neutral source, and I'll even give you the New York Times. But Fox News? The Democratic Underground? Are you kidding? Simon Dodd 15:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally I can't resist adding: it seems to me that you understand this, because instead of reverting my edit of the tone, you adapted it instead, in a manner which now remains NPOV. Simon Dodd 15:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simon Dodd's problem with perceived [[Perspective (cognitive)|POV]]

message: I'm concerned that political science definitions alone may not be enough to fully grasp the intended social psychology of the proposed changes. It may be that there is presented here a theory which is tied to other theories as a doctrine and if so then that entire body of thought needs to be defined. If the doctrine is part of a larger social movement then that needs to be considered in context.Sea level 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the issue of Unitary Executive Theory or Doctrine or Movement

message: This is not a good article, mostly because it is not well written, as ChrisL has explained well above.  It is too long, excessively complicated, and poorly formatted.  Word choice is particularly poor (latitudinarian stands out), severely limiting the article's potential audience.  It frequently has the appearance of having been written by authors who do not speak English.
Not only is this not a good article, it desperately needs help. --Ajdz 20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is "good"? 

message: Nescio's argumentum ad nazium is unencyclopedic and has no place in this already excessively long article.  Here's his chance to defend it (after his FOUR REVERSIONS in violation of the 3 revert rule)... --Ajdz 07:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that information, but you forgot to mention your unwillingness to discuss the matter. This is evident when we look here.-- Nomen Nescio 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment and your violation of the three revert rule speak for themselves. --Ajdz 07:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your defense of the argumentum ad nazium is the very definition of incivility.  Your statements have no bearing on your violations.  Please defend your use of the fallacy of argumentum ad nazium. --Ajdz 08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is not.  --Ajdz 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nescio's argumentum ad nazium 

message: There seems to be significant source/link spamming here.  Large numbers of external links are added, often with no or questionable relevance.  What's up with that? See, for example, Nescio's recent addition of sources to his ad nazium argument.  Where does it end?  When the article is 50% links to editorials?  75%? 90%?  Should we just delete the whole link and redirect to Lyndon LaRouche? 
The sources were deleted originally because, as I mentioned above (which of course was followed by reversion rather than discussion, a continuation of which will no doubt lead to Nescio again violating the 3 Revert Rule), they do not support to the assertion they are placed after.  Even if they did, they would still present the significant problem of relevance only to the extreme fringe of the article.  You guys need to work on making it readable, not representing the extreme fringe of politics.
Isn't there a wikipedia policy on relevance and link spam? --Ajdz 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not stop your personal attacks I will ask an admin to intervene. This already is beyond amusing.-- Nomen Nescio 20:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, isn't there a wikipedia policy on relevance and link spam? --Ajdz 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree the links should be reduced. However, Mr Ajdz has problems with certain parts of the article. To satisfy his fear of POV (clearly unwarranted since criticism as such is allowed in controversial articles) I provided a myriad of sources to proof the disputed edits are substantiated. If this editor can accept that although he has different views, these views exist also we can start by reducing the links. The links are merely to satisfy objectionists, but beyond that have no added value.-- Nomen Nescio 11:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link spamming 

message: I cleaned up this talk page, deleting my own sections that have been adequately discussed, and deleting others that were either out of date or resolved. If you were a party to these discussions and want them to continue feel free to edit them back in (don't just revert), but otherwise let's try to clean up after ourselves.
There's a real problem of basic terminological competence in this article, and without endorsing some cult of the expert I'll simply observe that a lot of the problems in this article don't exist in the academic and professional communities where terminology has been rigorously defined and established.
In his 1/31 edits, for example, Sea level "attempt[s] to combine the language of the warring factions". One way that he does this is to edit this:
the unitary executive doctrine (UED) (differentiate from unitary government) 
To say this:
In unitary government the UET which Samuel Alito has advocated to the Reagan and Bush administrations should be included in the UED, describes the relationships between the branches of government in a way which emphasizes the unitary authority of the President over all parts of the executive branch. 
:The standard form for a wikipedia article is to include the article title in the first sentence. This isn't an article about Unitary Executive Doctrine (UED). Feel Free to start one
Let's look at the semantic drift that has taken place here with the term "unitary government". 
The term "unitary executive" first appears in this article when Simon Dodd wrote
:I'm happy to leave off the part about unitary government, I didn't put it there and I think the article is clear without it, I do think its helpful to make it clear that a unitary executive theory is one theory which may or may not be or even become a part of the unitary executive doctrine.
:The Unitary Executive theory (UET) which Samuel Alito has advocated to the Reagan and Bush administrations should be included in the UED, describes the relationships between the branches of government in a way which emphasizes the unitary authority of the President over all parts of the executive branch. 
"In American political and legal discourse, the unitary executive theory -- which should not be confused with concepts of unitary government -- involves two facets..." [11] 
Here "unitary government" is introduced not because it is at all relevant to discussions of "unitary executive theory", but precisely because it is irrelevant and should not be confused with what is relevant. 
:I'm fine with that
Further, it is notable that the distinction is not made in reaction to any controversy surrounding "unitary government" and its relevance - rather, it was simply a good piece of proactive editing Dodd introduced to avoid any possible confusion. Later, MagnaMopus shortened the phrasing to "the unitary executive theory (UET, comp. unitary government)" 12 and then to its most recent form preceding Sea level's edit, "the unitary executive theory (UET) (differentiate from unitary government)" 13.
: If you want to be clear then what you really want to differentiate is unitary executive theory UET from unitary executive doctrine UED. 
Sea level's efforts to "combine the language of the warring factions" is odd to say the least, then, when he changes MagnaMopus's venerable phrasing which survived 166 edits, including the multiple edit wars, completely unchallenged. This is not an instance of Sea level establishing common ground or giving balanced attention to "warring" POVs because there are, as the history indicates, no warring factions to be found on this matter. This is instead an instance of Sea level either being either uninformed by or simply disregarding historical usage, both within Wikipedia and beyond. His change is not trivial. "Unitary government" is no longer explicitely distinguished from "unitary executive" - instead,
In unitary government proposing that the UET which Samuel Alito has advocated to the Reagan and Bush administrations should be included in the UED, it is intended and allowed by the constitution that the proposal be acted on by the executive branch and that there be consequences. 
: Unitary governments hold centralized power over subordinate units. It can be argued that in the United States the constitution provides for separation of powers with checks and balances. 
:What happens to separation of powers and checks and balances when one party controls all three branches?
:Is what happens in that situation when someone advocates a unitary executive the same as what happens otherwise?
:The answer would appear to be no. What happens then is that we end up with a unitary government in the sense of a centralized power controlling subordinate units because the checks and balances can no longer be applied. 
:I'm happy to leave it out and look at the general case rather than the specific situation we have now, but it seems that some reference to what happens with a situation such as what we have now would not be totally inappropriate.
This sentence is almost completely unreadable. The ambiguous subject "it" only appears 24 words into the sentence. The verb "is intended" is passive. Significantly, the copular "proposing" asserts a descriptive relationship between "unitary government" and "UET", presumably in the interest of "combining language", where no such relationship was ever established or even proposed. 
:The language is pretty simple actually. The subject is the UET. It follows the clause "in unitary government" which is a specific reference to a state of affairs that exists today, but would be expected to generally not be the case.
It is grammatically impossible to determine what precisely the "unitary government" of this sentence is "in" (the opening clause of the sentence is an enormous dangling modifier composed of no less than FOUR! prepositional phrases), and neither can I conceive of how unitary government might possible be "in" anything that has to do with our discussion of UED.
:There is an introductory prepositional clause, a noun clause, a verbal predicate clause, and an adverbial clause. That shouldn't be beyond the pale of language for anyone who has ever read a legal document.
Why is unitary government specifically invoked, as opposed to federal government? 
:As I mentioned above its the specific case that we are dealing with at present. I have no objections to looking at the general case so long as we can follow up with what Alito is proposing at some point.
Does Sea level understand that the United States is a federal government? 
: I understand it to be a Federal Republic with a Constitution and constitutional law which allows We the People to control the government.
Does he understand that the only thing "unitary executive" and "unitary government" share in common is their use of the word "unitary", and that the doctrine of the Unitary Executive has historically emerged from federalism, as indicated in the article's later observation that UED "is associated with conservative legal thought and the Federalist Society"?
:I understand any given unitary executive theory to be different from the entire body of unitary exexutive theories included in the the term unitary executive doctrine.
:The difference is that a given unitary executive theory may or may not be settled law while a unitary executive doctrine generally would be taken as settled law.
:I understand unitary government to refer to a particular situation where a centralized power has total control over subordinate units.
IMHO, no. IMHO, Sea level's attempts to "negotiate" his own interpretation into the article precedes any kind of acquaintance with and committment to conventional usage, and if "compromising" his viewpoint into the article means changing the relevance and even meaning of other ideas, he does it. "Unitary government" is only one example of this - 
:You seem not to like the idea that we are entering a period where a strong attempt is being made to substitute centralized power and unitary government for the separation of powers and the checks and balances we are used to. 
:I'll allow its arguable as to whether it has happened already or not. Assuming Congress remains in Republican hands through 2006 into 2008 it will probably be too late to reverse the process. Right now its really hard to predict whether the Republican party which is in total control at this moment can sustain that control and if so for how long.
another is his bizarre formulation that "the unitary executive theory (UET) is proposed to become a part of the unitary executive doctrine (UED)."
:That comes from Departmental Theory, see above. Its anything but bizarre, its the mainstream thinking on this issue. A theory is one idea and a doctrine is a collection of theories on a common theme which have become a body of thought.
This is patent nonsense. There's no actual conceptual relationship being articulate here - just an opaque spatial metaphor, "part of". And what have we accomplished in terms of "compromise" or "clarification" by simply positioning two disputed terms in some kind of relationship? The term UED was introduced as a correction to the misnomer UET, not as a distinct concept - the two cannot be placed into some kind of "compromise relationship" without changing their definitions. Changing the definitions of terms is not an appropriate way to write an article.
:A theory is one idea and a doctrine is a collection of theories on a common theme which have become a body of thought.
As I proposed in the beginning, the problem here is not one of POV - it's one of basic terminological competence. Knowledge - the sort of knowledge you get by actually studying UED, not simply reading a few articles or listening to talk radio - is taking a back seat to both argument and compromise. 
:We all benefit when we read and study more.
When I started working on this article I thought that the editors might benefit from my education on UED - but the problem here isn't a few experts trying to impose their authority upon dissent. The problem here is too many people claiming expertise that they don't actually have. In an attempt to remedy the edit war, I'm going to step down, even though I'm likely much more qualified (and certainly much more fluent in English) than some of my antagonists. I hope those with less competence will have the decency to follow suit. --Jdfawcett 22:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia may not always take the same postions you are used to over at the Federalist Society, but it does have a nice dialectic aspect of askking and answering to it.Sea level 23:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although a clean-up is always a good think it would be better to archive the page in stead of deleting. For future reference it is easier should anybody would like to read the now deleted discussions.-- Nomen Nescio 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up talk

message: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  It's too bad that this article is written only for those who live and die by minutiae.  I read this article and still have no idea what "Unitary Executive Theory" might or might not be.  The introductory portion might as well not exist, as it talks around the concept but never bothers to give the brief definition that conventionally begins serious encyclopedia articles.  This article is merely a set of technical notes and is not suitable for inclusion in something that purports to be an encyclopedia.  I dare not attempt to revise it, since I would have no idea, after reading the article, what said article is supposed to be saying in the first place. Dogface 13:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unitary Executive theory = The theory that there is only one bossFederal Street 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with dogface and nesco.  As I said before, I still could not send my kids to this page and expect them to be able to give even a simple definition of what UET is.  Too bad really. ChrisL 16:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has lots of talk, says nothing

message: Would it be acceptable to the honourable editors, to first find compromise on what we already have before adding new and extensive paragraphs? At the moment we are working for ourselves in stead of making it a team effort.-- Nomen Nescio 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Legal status of Samuel Alito's unitary executive theory