Talk:Unitary executive theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Use of fallacious argument in the John Yoo section

Without regard to the merits of John Yoo's position on Unitary executive theory, whoever last edited that article is guilty of "Appeal To Anonymous Authority" which is one of the logical fallacies.

Starting with this section:

"Yoo's opinions are widely seen by legal scholars as controversial and contrary to most scholars' understanding of the Constitution. "

WHICH legal scholars? Who are MOST SCHOLARS? This is like junior high school debating class. Not only is the section on Yoo expressing a political viewpoint, but it relies on unattributed "expert opinion". If it is so controversial then it deserves mention of who are the "legal scholars" who disagree with it. Relying on unnamed anonymous authority is clearly fallacious. It also give Wikipedia's articles on political subjects a reputation as unvetted flights of fancy. It is also expressing a viewpoint, a non-neutral viewpoint. If we want political advocacy I suggest there are better sites for that, like Politico for example. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of knowledge.

Wdn2008 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Executive powers of U.S. administrations

Shouldn't this section be it's own article, because frankly I had never heard of UET until the Bush II admiinistration and David Addington came along. I also agree with the request for deletion below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonMalfoy (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section is strange. It basically says that various US presidents did a bunch of stuff, but does not explain how any of that is directly related to the "unitary executive" theory. I propose deleting this section. The information in it is contained in the Wikipedia biographies of each of the respective presidents.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for Deletion

On January 6th[1], this article consisted of 186 words and one reference. Today it is over 7500 words and has 100+ references.

It has not been improved.

The article has grown to become a tendentious, pretentious, grotesque parody of the worst characteristics of Wikipedia. It no longer even pretends to tell someone what the Unitary Executive Theory is, and in fact starts off with three paragraphs of opaque discussion of UED, and UET, throws in Alito, Bush and Reagan for no discernible reason and then descends into a discussion of the black hole of Department Theory wherefrom no light or information ever escapes.

I believe this article can only be improved by reversion to the January 6th version and locking it down for six months.

Alternatively, I believe it should be a candidate for deletion.--Paul 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul, as I outline below I think that User:rktect is likely responsible for the deterioration in quality. The first appearance of one of his three aliases, User:69.164.66.203, appears on January 26 when he adds what User:Nescio immediately removes as an "Op-ed". Prior to this first appearance the Wiki was under 2,500 words and was much more compact. I recommend the 1/25 version as a better reversion. Thoughts from other people? --Jdfawcett 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The January 6th version is a thousand times better than the current. I agree with Paul.h's analysis here. The article should exist because the concept should be defined, but its current version (now twice the recommended maximum size) is truly, as Paul.h said above, "a tendentious, pretentious, grotesque parody of the worst characteristics of Wikipedia"

January 25th is better than the current version, but still problematic. It seems there is little hope for improvement with some of the current editors. A recent example is the major dispute and revert war[2] over removing objectively irrelevant material about congressional overreaching that was only present because of incomplete plagiarism of a non-helpful source.

Editing the current version, as I've said before, seems like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. --Ajdz 04:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been on Wikipedia for very long, so I, at least, defer to yours and Paul.h's judgment. --Jdfawcett 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the implication that merging in the material from Unitary Executive (January 16th) does not help ther article. I would concur to a revert to the 16th[3], but not the 6th. Simon Dodd 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The January 16th version of the article is certainly better than the current version, but it is still carrying around a lot of excess baggage. There's heavy going from the start with talk about "facets." I have doubts that the current editors can spin the straw of even this version into a golden Wikipedia "good article."

If the Unitary Executive Theory article were a country, it would be Angola where from 1975 until the mid 1980's the two super powers fought a proxy war. The war being fought in the UET article is the war between the Congressional and Executive branches of the U.S. Government, and between opposition Congressional Democrats and the Bush Presidential administration.

The proxy war has ruined this article, and it is what is making it so difficult for the article to become a clear and concise guide to the Unitary Executive Theory. If we could agree to describe the UET without bringing in all of the critics and defenders, and the controversial current political personalities and caricatures, I'd support reverting to the January 16th version and starting over with new edits. But I fear that current political ferment and non-cooperative editing would once again quickly overwhelm the new start.

I think this article can describe the UET and provide a nice list of references, without using more than 500 to 1,000 words, but as editors, we all need to agree to take our doctrinal wars to the editorial pages and blogs of the world and leave Wikipedia articles to present concise, factual encyclopedia-length digests.--Paul 02:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the better analogy here: if the Unitary Executive article were a street corner, it would be that street corner where the LaRouchites are yelling things and both opposition Democrats and Bush loyalists are like "Will you please stop yelling things? We're trying to have a conversation." A close reading of the debates supports this interpretation, IMHO - I have not, in fact, seen very much pro-UED advocacy to speak of. Does anyone in this discussion actually buy into UED? Personally I'm a vigorous opponent, but I think it demonstrative that I get villified as some kind of Bush lackey if for a moment I fail to characterize UED as a worldwide Cheney-led conspiracy against which Lyndon LaRouche is our only hope. If there ARE any pro-UED editors here, they've certainly been acting in good enough faith not to warrant any disputes from me.

Again, I defer to everyone else's judgment, but IMHO the January 6th (actually 5th) isn't adequate to the task. It still refers to the Unitary Executive as a theory rather than a doctrine; it proposes "the executive cannot sue himself" rationale as definitive rather than consequential; it makes no mention of departmental or coordinate construction theory; it says nothing of UED's extremely important proposition that the Executive has interpretive authority; and in omitting any kind of historical background, it seems to characterize UED as a specific innovation of the Bush Administration. These are all, I think, aspects of UED that both sides can agree are significant enough to mention. I must admit that I like Nomen Nescio's initiative in a comprehensive rewrite. Perhaps the thing to do would be for editors to work on their own basic, essentialist rewrites and then do a straw pull? Just an idea. --Jdfawcett 16:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One alleged LaRouchite didn't add over 5,000 words all alone. --Paul 16:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well here's one reader who's a proponent of UET. --User:bucs79 04:59 20 August 2006

Actually, that's pretty much precisely what I think happened. No sense in getting stuck on the question of whether or not the editors in question are actually LaRouche propogandists - I'm fine with anyone participating in this article if they do it in good faith. But as I've documented below, Federal Street, Sea level, and 69.164.66.203 all have really dubious editing records on Wikipedia, and there's compelling evidence that they're all the same person. The 5,000 words are a reflection of the ridiculously protracted (now archived) talk debates that they instigated- have you read them?

That said, if someone wants to take action, go for it. This is turning into that Life of Brian skit: "We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speaches, it's not going to shift one Roman soldier!" For my part, I've basically lost interest. --Jdfawcett 19:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The two paragraph quote from Al Gore lamenting that Bush thinks he's above the law, is extremely out of place in this article. It isn't supposed to be a debate, it's supposed to be an article explaining UET! This reeks of someone desperate to get their POV into the article. 68.39.157.13 07:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sea Level and Federal Street as sockpuppets

User:Sea level, during an earlier discussion, asserts that a "Definition should make clear; 1.) What is it that makes it what it is. 2.) What is it that makes it not something else." (Line 195)

During my discussion with User:Federal Street, User:69.164.66.203 asserts that "You can always define anything by asking what is it that makes it what it is and what is it that makes it something else."

User:69.164.66.203 is User:Federal Street, as evident by the proximity and continuity of his 0:28 and 0:31 talk edits.

User:69.164.66.203 has been warned for vandalizing articles.

Federal Street is a suspected sock puppet of User:rktect.

User:Federal Street and User:Sea level are both invoking an identical formulation of "definition" which is, notably, frequently invoked in LaRouche's writings. Both invoke similar LaRouchian arguments (EG Sea Level's defense of Führerprinzip against Ajdz, Federal Street's conspiratorial introduction of the Kennedy assassination as somehow relevant).

Rktect was previously banned from the article on "squaring the circle", a big topic among the LaRouchites. [4]

He was then blocked "for using [his] sockpuppet, User:Federal Street to violate the ArbCom decision." I suspect that User:rktect's in this room, using Federal Street, Sea level, and User:69.164.66.203 to integrate LaRouchian POV into the article. If so, I call on you to desist immediately and will request arbitration as necessary. I have already contacted other editors who have dealt with you in the past, and they are watching. --Jdfawcett 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In stead of deleting

we could try and rewrite what we have. I will again suggest what I think would make a good start.

• Introduction: short and succinct description.
• Origins: describing what laws it is based upon and how it developed through time.
• Theory: definition and describing different aspects.

Departmental Theory: what is it, if possible limit to definition.

Aspects of Unitary Executive doctrine: what aspects are there?

• The legal status of the Unitary Executive doctrine: what are the legal consequences?
• Application by several U.S. administrations: More or less as it is now.
• See also: as it is
• Notes: incorporating the references and external links (these sections of course can then be deleted), although somebody has to insert them in the appropriate location.

To those editors looking at the article and complaining about what is wrong, could you please add your ideas as to how things can be rewritten in a less elaborate way.

First, would the intro as of January 25 be acceptable? As to the theory, could sombody write a succinct (Jan 25?) paragraph describing it? Et cetera.-- Nomen Nescio 12:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I started with editing out what looks like Op-ed material. Hope participating editors agree otherwise feel free to revert to previous version. This is not meant to be a definite version but a chance to get beyond the deadlock. If I did delete anything usefull we can reinsert it again, but in the interest of clarity please discuss first. Maybe Jdfawcett can once more look at it and suggest any changes in the definition to make it more accurate?

Interestingly enough we now have Unitary Executive doctrine to look at.-- Nomen Nescio 13:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the revert + six-month lockdown plan better myself. keith 03:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the references to the Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman administrations. None of these administrations used the UET because during their terms because at the time there was no UET. Thus it is impossible for the UET to have been used by these administrations. The uses of Executive power by the administrations named are not examples of the UET. Naming past uses of Presidental power is not evidence to support the assertion by proponents of the UET that the President has all the Executive power, and that the UET is based in Presidental or Constitutional traditions. In fact none of the named Administrations ever claimed their actions were legal or constitutional because of the UET, or because they believed that the President held all the Executive power. JUICE 07:47, 11 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

Also removed wartime implications. Only one President has used the UET claim during its term, and as no state of war has existed during the term of said administration (remember the Constitution limits the authority to declare a state of war to Congress) there can not be a wartime implication for the UET. No state of war, not wartime implication. Also renamed the wartime implications section Constitutional arguments while leaving the last 2 paragraphs of the former wartime implications intact. JUICE 08:18, 11 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely correct. This administration claims the theory is not invented but based upon the Constitution. And although not explicitly named this would suggest that any Commander-in-Chief arguments are related, if not equal, to the UET. Furthermore, since calming down from the previous strom I think it would be better to discuss before making such drastic changes, not because your argument is wrong, but to keep compromise alive. Therefore I will restore the deleted parts. Feel free to debate on the subject.-- Nomen Nescio 17:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with compromise, nothing I removed has any cites and none of it has any Verifiability. None of the Application of Executive powers by several U.S. administrations or the wartime implications has any sources to support the claims made, and thus is in violation of the No Original Research policy, and should not be restored barring proper citing and sourcing. JUICE 12:53, 11 Febuary 2006 (UCT)

Nice try. Even if that were true, you could have added the tag ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  to ask for citation. Furthermore, the more than numerous references under notes, are that numerous just to address people like you. By reading all you will find your assertion of verifiability and original research are not substantiated and suggesting otherwise is a but uncivil. I will revert so you have the chance of reading them.

For those incapable of reading the notes and references I will insert them to the exact location, be patient. For the moment please let it be so I'll have the chance to do it.

Beyond that, it is evident the controversial subject elicits emotional responses. Once again I would like to ask for compromise rather than radical changes. Just to prevent the lockdown we had before it is necesary to work together in stead of against each other. Let's discuss the perceived problems. Sincerely - Nomen Nescio 11:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First to the claim that my "assertion of verifiability and original research are not substantiated"

The claim is substantiated, there are not 3 verifiable sources for past uses by Presidental administrations of UT, because there are no, zero, none, not a single example of past uses of UT. The Library of Congress and National archives show as much. Claims that it was used do not stand up merely because they are claimed.

The claim that my "suggesting otherwise is a but uncivil" is rediculous because there can not exist something that did not exist at the time it is being claimed to have existed. Nothing can change that. There are not examples of George Washington driving cars because cars did not exist in his time. Just because cars exist now does not mean that Washington drove a car, even if it is claimed he did. .

I still think that the Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman "past uses" of the unitary theory need to be removed. The idea that these administrations used unitary theory is original research with no basis in accepted constitutional or Presidental history or prescident. How can past administrations use a theory that didn't exist at the time they were in office and they never claimed to have?

Only the Bush Administration has based any of it's actions on the claimed unitary executive theory. Furthermore the examples of past administrations actions are only named as proof that the unitary theory exists by the administration (the Bush admin) that is attempting to assert that their theory is correct, not that they were uses of UT. Calling those past administrations actions examples of UT being used does not make them examples of UT being used by past administrations. In addition the footnotes to papers on the subject are not referenced by any part of the section except for the Bush admin portion. There is not one reference in the library of Congress/national archives website to any past Presidental administration using unitary executive theory because they did not use what did not and does not exist. To claim that any admin used UT is misrepresenting the fact. Untill there is actual verifiable and citable examples of any of these administrations using UT, they should not be in. Continually re-adding them is part of why this article is so lagged down, and as they DID NOT HAPPEN they should not be in. These are not radical changes. Including them is a radical misrepresentation of UT and it's non-existant relation to past Presidents. JUICE66 07:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This response is a little bit over the top. Scholars have written articles picking out presidential action that illustrate UET. See:

• Yoo & Calabresi (1997). "The Unitary Executive during the First Half-Century". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 47: 1451.
• Yoo & Calabresi (2003). "The Unitary Executive during the Second Half-Century". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 26.
• Yoo, Calabresi & Nee (2004). "The Unitary Executive During the Third Half-Century, 1889-1945". Notre Dame Law Review. 80.
• Yoo, Calabresi & Nee (2005). "The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2004". Iowa Law Review. 90 (2): 601.

When ancient man looked at lightning, he didn't know anything about charged particles. When a theory of electricity was developed that explained lightning scientifically, those earlier instances of lightning were then correctly explained in terms of the new theory. I don't think this article needs the examples of past administration actions that illustrate the UET, as the UET just isn't that complex or important of a concept that it needs a 5,000 word article. I do agree, however, if any historical material is added back that it should correctly use citations to the papers above.--Paul 15:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the proponents suggest the theory is based upon the Constitution. Therefore all previous administration invoking the same concept, even if they did not name it as such, used the UET.

If, however, the theory is new, and invented by the current supporters, it follows that the reasoning behind the legallity of violating US and international law (torture, refuting Geneva Conventions, invading country without cause, et cetera) is completely incorrect. Then this administration is guilty of war crimes and should be indicted.

Take your pick, either the UET is as old as the Constitution, or it is invented.

Regarding the length of the article, examples are alway a simple way of explaining things. Beyond that the artic;le isn't that long. Except from the notes, but they are there to satisfy the critical editors among us. Nomen Nescio

Unconstitutional actions can not reasonably be used as evidence to support the claim that UT has a Constitutional basis. It makes no sense. It would be like the government saying it had the authority to close newspapers, and censor peoples speech because of the 1st amendment. I understand that the proponents of UT wish to use unconstitutional actions to support the so-called UT and it's Constitutionality, in the end I think they are only going to hurt their own legal credibility by doing so.JUICE66 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As an aside regarding the UT being as old as the Constitution, the Federalist papers, and Madison in particular (in Federalist #69 for one) state that the constitution, and the intent for the constitution was to provide for a weak executive branch, unlike the monarchy they had just fought a war to be free of. I think that Yoo and the other professors advocating the UT ignore this because it doesn't support their argument.JUICE66 06:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Federalist 69 explains how the president is to be far less powerful than the KING OF ENGLAND, not Congress. All the Federalist Papers treat the Executive and Congress as co-equal powers. 68.39.157.13 07:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that UE is somehow new to this administration falls apart quite easily, when you see that the phrase was used in signing statements by both Reagan and Clinton. Also this article seems to frequently confuse UET with the mandate that the president not execute unconstitutional laws.68.39.157.13 07:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction still worthless

Contrary to the overly-hasty conclusions of others, I was attempting to express what the article appeared to say. If it came out "POV", it is due to complete failure on the part of the article as is. If the "introduction" is going to remain as turgid and overly technical as it already is, I suggest that this article simply be deleted, altogether. Dogface 13:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, please tell us how the intro should look as you see it. PLace it here, and when the other editors agree it can be replaced.-- Nomen Nescio 13:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This article:Calabresi & Rhodes, The Structural Constitution: Unitary Executive, Plural Judiciary, 105 Harvard Law Review 1155 (1992) is mentioned in a lot of bibliographies as being one of the seminal modern articles on the Unitary Executive. I would think that a good introduction and definition could come from this article, and the definition would then also be referenced/sourced (which is one of the major problems with the current article -- a lot of controversial statements with insufficient references). It's pretty clear from available sources that the Unitary Exeuctive argues that executive branch power resides solely within the office of the President, and therefore EPA can't sue DOJ, and Congress can't fire an executive branch employee. It is however, very unclear that the theory justifies broad executive power, usurping Congressional or Judicial perogatives. Perhaps this argument is set forth and argued in the Calabresi & Rhodes paper? --Paul 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This quote "but also has the responsibility to interpret the law as it applies to the actions of the executive branch, in the absence of judicial determination." was in the article. I've removed it for the moment and would like to add it back. It sounds correct, but it needs a reference to an original scholarly article that makes the argument. Does anyone have a reference citation for this? --Paul 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nixon's Relevance to Unitary Executive Theory

I would like to keep Nixon in since his rationale behind his conduct, very much was based upon the all powerful executive, as is explained in the sources.-- Nomen Nescio 00:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The short section on Nixon that I removed had no references. Do you have some specific reference in mind?

Also, the Nixon paragraph lumped clearly legal and clearly illegal things together. I don't understand the UET to argue that President's are above the law. I was hoping some primary documents might make that part of the argument more clear.--Paul 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As you probably remember, there are commentators who do think UET stands for unchecked power. We discussed it earlier and the references no longer supported after the Alito part was deleted clearly mention it also. I am not saying it is true, but several legal experts interpret the UET as such.

As to references. I forgot the exact source to the story, so I'll look it up and get back to you. -- Nomen Nescio 00:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

most of the current article, includiog that section, confuse separation of powers with UET. Just because some intellectually dishonest opinion column identifies it that way, doesn't mean it is now ok to go through history and list all separation of powers and executive privelige arguments as UET arguments as well. That would be original research. keith 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am impressed by the sheer objectivity (intellectually dishonest opinion) of the former comment. As to the war time powers please look here.-- Nomen Nescio 12:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry I don't get your point. I don't see where that article refers to UET. btw every president gets accused of this kind of stuff by the opposition party. I'm sure all supreme court nominees get asked about it as well, and I doubt very many take the opportunity to bite the hand that nominated them. So yes the hysteria implied by those sources that we suddenly have an imperial president--who is concidentally of the opposite party from themselves--is intellectually dishonest. keith 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The UET is about some legal definition. Since the law is open to interpretation -hence the need for an interpretor (a judge)- it is absolutely evident there is not one absolute truth. Of course, you have the right to your opinion, but that does not mean another way of reading things (that it would place the President above the law) is incorrect, or would be evidence of as you put it an intellectually dishonest opinion. Furthermore, you must have noticed the argument of inherent power of the Commander-in-Chief, for defending eavesdropping without a warrant. -- Nomen Nescio 10:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of the law is one thing. Reasonable people can disagree on what is legal and illegal. My low opinion is due to the conclusions they leap to. keith 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that, although you acknowledge difference of opinion regarding how to read the law, you decide which conclusion is correct. Nomen Nescio 10:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are making rhetorical arguments now. Soandso is a very controlling editor therefore he is a Neo-fascist. Do we need to know the subject's political affiliation to judge this argument's merit? keith 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting observation, but it still does not explain on what grounds you are capable to know and decide how to read the law. Nomen Nescio 17:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it address the question of how often you beat your wife. keith 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wartime Implications

I have to agree with User:Juice66, the "Wartime Implications" section makes a series of unsubstantiated, unreferenced,unverifiable, and I believe erroneous claims. Current political events make clear that there is an argument going on about Presidential vs. Congressional power, but the argments I have heard and read about are all related to Presidential power as Commander in Chief, or interpretations of what a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force really means. I have seen no first-hand claims that the unitary exective theory can be brought to bear on this argument. Please note that editorials saying that the unitary executive theory is being used to justify Presidential misconduct are not sufficient. There is a lot of intellectually sloppy writing on the web erroneously tying Presidential excesses to the unitary executive theory. The unitary exective theory has become an intellectual wastebasket containing all manner of questionable claims. To verify the claims in this section, we need quotes from folks like Prof. Yoo (this may in fact be possible - but just becase Professor Yoo is a proponent of the UET and a proponent of strong exective power in wartime, doesn't mean that the two concepts are synonymous) or Attorney General Gonzales that explicity make the points claimed in this section. I am deleting this section until sufficient citations and verifiability can be found. --Paul 21:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the professors from the "editorials" do not suffice. Since their opinion is "POV" it is only natural to ignore them, what a revelation. Nomen Nescio 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Call for comments on Nescio's reverts

Nescio, your reverts don't make any sense.

1) You've reinserted an Al Gore citation (footnote 8) that doesn't correspond with any cite from the actual article. As a result, all the footnotes starting with 8 aren't related to the issue for which they are cited.

2) All the stuff I deleted is from the "UE-Yoo" footnote, which should be footnote 8 but is in fact footnote 9 because you didn't pay attention to your reverts. I have no objection to the deleted cites being cited in an appropriate place, but in order to be in the "UE-Yoo" footnote, they have to support the statement they follow, which is "At present, the position taken by adherents of the 'unitary executive' theory, and promoted by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international" Of the citations, the following do not mention either unitary executive or John Yoo, so they don't support the sentence. As I said, I have no objection to you moving them someplace else, if you can show that they're relevant.

• Bush on Trial for Crimes against Humanity By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, January 24, 2006

• How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006

• Administration Paper Defends Spy Program Detailed Argument Cites War Powers By Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, January 20, 2006

You are correct, somebody edited out Gore. I restored that deletion so the problem must now be solved.

As to the relevance, the title should say enough: "How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent." The articles explicitly explain the use of the Commander in Chief thingy under this theory. To me that suffices as relevant. Nomen Nescio 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

None of those articles support the proposition that "the position taken by adherents of the 'unitary executive' theory, and promoted by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international." I would normally have no objection to replacing those that sentence with your suggestion of "the following writers explain the use of the Commander in Chief thingy under this theory," except that more than half the articles DO NOT DISCUSS THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY. TheronJ 20:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On Presidential powers:

Bush wrote that his commander in chief power allows him to do anything he thinks is necessary, including torture, notwithstanding the amendment passed by Congress. Ratner called that a "historic, unprecedented grab for power" that spells the end of checks and balances in our government. Bush, according to Ratner, has declared that George Bush is the law.[5]

The President, in his view of the world, can interpret away constraints on his power, such as those in the McCain Amendment, or FISA before it. And the courts can hardly question his dubious "interpretations" even if they gut the very statutes they construe: After all, there are "constitutional limitations on the judicial power" - though not, apparently, on the power of the executive.[6]

Bush has made this radical change in the American political system by combining what his legal advisers call the “plenary” – or unlimited – powers of the Commander in Chief with the concept of a “unitary executive” in control of all laws and regulations.[7]

What does "unitary powers" mean? It means that if the President alone decides that the country is faced with what he alone defines to be a critical problem, his authority is unchecked. In other words, he decides where the powers lies in the Constitution -- he decides the contour of his power. This sounds more like a monarchy, more like authoritarianism than a democracy.[8]

The Justice Department also argues that the inherent presidential powers in Article II of the Constitution -- to wage war -- cannot be abridged or impended in the context of a global terrorism fight. Justice lawyers say they believe that the president's powers are consistent with FISA but that if there is any question of a conflict, the president's powers trump FISA.[9]

In a series of opinions, Yoo argued that the Constitution grants the president virtually unhindered discretion in wartime.[10]

He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution.[11]

Using his wholly fabricated 'Unitary Theory of the Executive,' Bush has decreed his administration to be entirely above the rule of law.[12]

.......the radical "unitary executive" theory now practiced by the Bush administration. Adherents of this theory argue that Congress has no authority to restrict the president's power over executive branch operations, and any president who refuses to obey such a statute of Congress is not really breaking the law.[13]

.......the phrase "unitary executive" is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.[14]

These quotations should help you in determining the accuracy of the comment. Nomen Nescio 21:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, are you arguing that every time the president argues that he has broad powers, that's the "unitary executive theory?" If so, what's your support for that argument? IMHO, if somebody says "the president has too much power," they're not saying "the president has seized power under his interpretation of the unitary executive theory." Specifically, there's no reference to the unitary executive theory in the three articles I cite above, and certainly no reference to what George Bush thinks the unitary executive theory means, which is the idea that you have cited them to support. Thanks, TheronJ 21:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have emphasised the explicit use of the term in the above quotations. What part of it is not clear? As to the "broad powers," this is exactly what critics fear the UET means. And, although the other articles do not mention the term, they are discussing the theory also.

Please consider the following, I can include all the articles you want, but you must be aware that this will increase the space we use for the notes section. We have to make a decision. Either you accept these sources, oand we can leave it at that. Or I will insert all the references I can find, but then nobody gets to complain about the size of the article. Nomen Nescio 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How about you only include the articles that support your point, but not the others? You have highlighted the term, but none of your highlights are from the three articles I questioned.

My question is, how do you know that an article that says "George Bush has too much power" really means "George Bush thinks that the legal doctrine of 'unitary executive' means the following . . ."? The fact that some OTHER article uses the words unitary executive doesn't prove that a different article proves that the Bush administration has a particular viewpoint. TheronJ

These statments, "We have to make a decision. Either you accept these sources, oand we can leave it at that. Or I will insert all the references I can find, but then nobody gets to complain about the size of the article." do not seem to be or support a good-faith attempt at reaching a consensus. It comes across as a bunch of absolutes that must be followed or else, & that leave no room for compromise.

This leaves no room for anything but Nomen's way regardless of wether or not what he wishes to include is relevant to the parts of the article they claim to reference. Sounds to me like a claim (which ignores what others have shown about said claim) that only one person is right and gets to decide what goes in, and it just needs to be decided which of his ways it will be, or what amounts to 'lets flip a coin, heads I win, tails you lose'. What kind of compromise is that? Leave in incorrect irrelevant info and references, or more will be added? That can do nothing but lead to a revert war, which is not going to do anything productive. JUICE66 00:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think citations should conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (especially the advice "get close to the source"). If something is linked as a citation, it should directly back up the assertion associated with it. If a source does not confirm an asserted fact, it should not be used. If there is no source for an assertion, the material should be removed from the article until such time as a source can be found. --Paul 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Some observations:

1 This article is, in the mind of some editors, too long. To repeatedly engage in discussions about the veracity of certain paragraphs, when there is clear evidence it is based upon numerous statements by legal analysts, makes me feel I have to insert additional sources. If to some my trying to point that out is offensive I regret that. For those insisting there is no ground for suggesting the UET stands for unlimited power I have added more examples in the list above which I am more than happy to include in the notes. You will also find the original sources are part of these quotations. Is the claim of inherent broad war powers valid or not? If we could agree that the part we are debating here is substantiated we can move on.

2 Contrary to certain accusations, I do not want to leave out information. Those editors suggesting I do, fail to accept that by deleting analysis by critics they are selectively presenting information, which constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV. Those who have read the article will see I try to explain both views. Although some feel the need to introduce weasel words in those comments they would rather censor, I do not engage in such behaviour.

3 As to what is correct or incorrect information, that is not for us to decide. We only report, but do not formulate our personal believes. Without doubt, I have provided enough sources to make the claim that it is all a lie, anti-Bush, bias, or POV sound rather hollow. You are free to think those comments are wrong, but that is not the same as your opinion is ipso facto the only one to include. To ensure real NPOV all views should be presented and not only those that are comfortable to your eyes. Please, you might want to read Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.

4 Oddly enough editors feel the need to misrepresent the sources in the article. For some reason they deny what is being concluded in them and want to ignore the numerous comments by critics. And if they don't mention their contents erroneously, they refute these sources on irrelevant arguments.

5 TheronJ, your question, how do you know that an article that says "George Bush has too much power, really means "George Bush thinks that the legal doctrine of 'unitary executive' means the following . . ."? is easily answered. Although not explicitly named, the description of the use of war powers fits the description of the UET. Or, what would I be talking about if I said I had seen a very large, grey animal with big flappy ears, a long snout and it was eating peanuts? Few would demand this creature to be explicitly named. Please look at this quote:

Several scholars have recently rearticulated the "unitary executive theory" of Article II, arguing that Article II vests the power to execute federal law solely in the President of the United States.[15] This is what the artcles describe, although they do not use the term.

6 To those worried about compromise, what about mentioning the interpretation of both the proponents and the opponents? Doesn't that sound good?

7 In stead of warring over what the Bush administration might think, can the honourable editors expand the paragraphs explaining the theory? This would be a more important part to work on.

Furthermore, some might be interested in reading WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:Civility, WP:POINT. Nomen Nescio 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of your sources are bad because they are clearly partisan, and apparently not subject to any kind of peer review nor published anywhere besides very partisan web sites. That doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong (which would be ad hominem), but it does mean they are untrustworthy and unencyclopedic. So citing them won't convince anyone of anything except as a primary source and people generally won't want to waste their time reading them. keith 15:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Plenary Power and Unitary Executive are different things

After a night to sleep on it, it seems to me that Nomen is confusing plenary power arguments (that the president has primary authority in the areas under his control, such as war and foreign relations) with the unitary executive theory (that the executive branch is a unitary organization, such that congress doesn't have the authority to hire or fire executive employees, and individual branches of the executive must resolve their disputes by administrative remedies, not by judicial remedies. I'll see if I can find the time to find some authorities and draft some stuff up comparing and contrasting the concepts. TheronJ 14:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is highly possible since I am no expert on the subject. Oddly enough I am not suggesting it, but only repeating what professors at law(!) are saying. So if anybody got it wrong, it would be the legal scholars used as reference. Once again I refer to the sources that explicitly name the UET and advance the interpretation you object to. Is it possible to accept there are people (no, not me!) that are convinced this is how it should be read? Is it possible to include these views, even if you do not agree with their conclusions? Just to adhere to WP:NPOV?

Take your time, looking forward to you comments. Nomen Nescio 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Almost none of your sources are from law professors or even lawyers. I would be very interested in a law professor's legal analysis of the unitary executive theory. Thanks, TheronJ 15:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look again:

• Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree
• Elizabeth de la Vega has served more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Minneapolis and San Jose
• Roger A. White is a trial attorney
• Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, President-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists
• Edward Lazarus is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School [16]
• Martin Garbus trial lawyer

Which of these do your refer to when insisting that "(a)lmost none of your sources are from law professors or even lawyers?" Nomen Nescio 10:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, you stated above that "professors of law" are saying that any time Bush is bad, it means that he's interpreting the "unitary executive" theory to grant him unlimited power. Can you tell me which articles are written by law professors and actually say that? I would like to read a law professor's opinion on the unitary executive theory (in an article that uses the phrase "unitary executive") but I haven't found one in your massive pile of unrelated citations. Thanks, TheronJ 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting development. First, the sources did not support the claim. Then, the sources were biased. The next argument was that the sources were wrong. Now I explicitly prove several commentators have law degrees you suddenly invent the need for professors to substantiate the edit. This is a case of moving the goalpost if ever I saw one. Looking at the way you discuss this (Card stacking, ad hominem, Ignoratio elenchi, Petitio principii, No True Scotsman, Slothful induction) we can safely conclude your contribution is evidently not in good faith. Nomen Nescio 17:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, this is very tiresome. (1) You wrote, and I quote, "Oddly enough I am not suggesting it, but only repeating what professors at law(!) are saying." ("It," in this case, refers to the concept that plenary presidential power and the unitary executive theory are the same thing.) I asked you to identify one article in which a professor at law made that assertion, and instead of doing so, you launched a personal attack at me. I would honestly like to read a law professor's opinion on this, and would ask you to assume good faith. (2) Incredibly, you're accusing me of an ad hominem attack. Please identify at least one ad hominem attack I've ever made in this discussion, or drop it. TheronJ 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to have this discussion in good faith. But it is difficult to stay that way when even after I demonstrated many legal analysts think the theory is about broad powers, editors (I admit this is not about you, my mistake) feel the need to insist no such claim can be substantiated. So, if my frustration got the better of me I am sorry. All I ask is for all editors to have a reasonable debate. Although I do not want to claim that this is how the theory should be understood, to entirely dismiss the criticism boggles my mind and that also does not constitute good faith. If it;s OK with you I would like to start over and debate the facts. Thank you.

You saying "the concept that plenary presidential power and the unitary executive theory are the same thing" clearly is a misunderstanding. Please remember what this is about. The disputed claim is that UET is about sweeping executive powers. You thought that might be a mistake and those powers might fall under plenary presidential power ("it seems to me that Nomen is confusing plenary power arguments .... with the unitary executive theory"). My response was that there could be a mix-up, but if it was then it was made by legal experts. They were talking about the UET and not about plenary power. Never did I state that the two concepts were the same. Nomen Nescio 23:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting/Removing valid counterpoints

Under the Bush administration the section that says:

"At present, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and promoted by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international. Opponents note that such a stance, which they believe resemble the Führerprinzip, is not unlike the one seen in police states."

This had a valid opposition (against UT) argument (while keeping what is in my opinion a poorer opposition argument) removed. It should not have been removed. This section removed noted that there is opposition to the UT based on the Constitution of the United States not giving the President (or anyone else) any exceptional "war powers".

That the Constitution of the United States gives no special "war powers" can not be denied, as a reading of the Constitution of the United States shows it gives no special "war powers" this is before factoring in the Supreme Courts rulings that the Executive has no exceptional "wartime powers". In fact the article cites a case in the Lincoln section, Ex Parte Milligan in which the Supreme court ruled 7-0 against the use of a claimed "presidental war power/authority". This is in addition to the SC decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer which ruled that President Trumans claim of inherent Presidental authority and power and actions taken using the claim were unconstitutional because the President has no special "war power/authority".

Removing the valid opposition argument against the Yoo and proponents of UT claims, when the argument has a valid basis in the Constitution of the United States as well as past SC rulings while leaving in the weaker opposition argument undermines that portion of the article and removes a valid reason with legal precedent that people have for opposing the UT. JUICE66 08:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of this material should be removed, as should most of the current article. Why? Because it is based on strawman logic. The statement...

"At present, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and promoted by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international. Opponents note that such a stance, which they believe resemble the Führerprinzip, is not unlike the one seen in police states."

... has a number of references cited but none of them support the assertion that UET "holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international."

The fact that Yoo, who is a proponent of the UET, may have made such an argument about Presidential commander in chief powers (but there is no reference to prove that he did) does not link UET to Yoo's views on that power. This is a syllogistic error of the undistribued middle (two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property). Just because Yoo has argued for the UET and has also argued for a strong Commander in Chief power, does not prove that UET argues for a strong Commander in Chief.

The article is riddled with such errors. The introduction describes what supporters of the UET really argue, and is based on verifiable references (article and page number). Unfortunately, the rest of the article attacks the UET on points that aren't made in the introduction. Most of this article is a perfect example of the strawman fallacy. As User:TheronJ has pointed out, UET and "plenary power" are different things. The article accurately describes what the UET is, and then spends 2,000 words attacking aspects of the doctrine of plenary power.

Until real sources for claims that UET argues that the President cannot "[be] restrained by any law, national or international" can be cited, the entire article after "The legal status of the unitary executive theory" should be deleted. As it stands now, these sections are unverifiable and are thus original research, neither of which is allowed on Wikipedia. --Paul 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is getting tedious, you repeatedly dismiss the sources on ad hominem principles, and you fail to recognize, even after I showed it above, that legal analysts make the assertion that UET is about sweeping war powers. Just as in the Alito article (where you already were told the claim of unchecked Presidential powers is supported by the sources and no valid argument exists to deny mentioning it) you still have to address the numerous questions I have asked. Simply holding a monologue with platitudes does not constitute argumenting your case. Would a requests for comment be better to resolve the issue at hand? Clearly you are unwilling to accept there is ample evidence for the text as it is. Granted, it might not be very complimenting to Bush et al, which seems to be you principal motivation in refuting these critics. Maybe you could start reading resolving disputes. Nomen Nescio 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, it is you, not I who is making ad hominem ("against the person") arguments. I have only pointed out that from a scholarly perspective this article is built on a house of unsupported unverifiable cards. You, on the other hand, attack me ("holding a monologue with platitudes") and repeatedly state that "legal analysts make the assertion" as if that is some kind of logical magic that gets around the scholarly requirement for primary sources and pardons the straw man fallacies destroying this article. If an astronomer were to say that there are canals on Mars or that the Moon is made of cheese, would that make it so? Would you put it in an encyclopedia to provide alternate points of view?

The article as it now stands reads like this: The UET = A. Some legal analysts say that the UET = B. B is terrible, therefore A is terrible. Unfortunately, doing real research for encyclopedia articles requires real work. In the case of the obscure constitutional law theory known as the UET, such work might require going to the law library (like I did to get the 1992 Calabresi & Rhodes article). Searching the Internet for "Dangerous+Alito+UET" and reading the articles that result is not sufficient. 95% of the cites in this article are less than 60 days old and relate to the Alito nomination and Senate hearings. They contain statements by political opponents of Bush as to what they think the UET means and why it follows that Bush and Alito are dangerous. These are not encyclopedia-quality sources. There is not a single source from a non-political scholarly article arguing that "UET = B". Nor, do any of the political articles quote Yoo, Calabresi, Rhodes or Nee as saying that UET = B before attacking the premise that UET = B. You are correct, that this is certainly the crux of the disagreement. "Legal analysts" and op-ed writers can set up straw men just as well as editorial writers. Writers of encylcopedia articles must be more careful.

I only want this article to accurately describe the UET and then rationally discuss the pros and cons. The current article doesn't even come close.--Paul 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will answer tomorrow. Nomen Nescio 05:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I am unable to adequately explain my edits. Once more I will try, but maybe we should have a request for comment.

1 Why do you think Yoo, Calabresi, Rhodes or Nee are the only people on the entire planet who are capable of understanding and explaining the UET? Or in other words, why do you dismiss the use of professors at law and federal prosecutors, as getting "around the scholarly requirement for primary sources and pardons the straw man fallacies?"

2 Oddly enough you think Yoo is in no way politically influenced. You must have missed his ties to certain poltical individuals, his arguments in refuting the GC, his arguments advocating torture is admissible. Few scholars around the world subscribe to his interpretation of the law.

3 Your reason for refuting the sources are: "Until real sources for claims that UET argues, <.....> these sections are unverifiable and are thus original research," and ""legal analysts make the assertion" as if that is some kind of logical magic that gets around the scholarly requirement for primary sources and pardons the straw man fallacies destroying this article.," and "These are not encyclopedia-quality sources." This is only a selection of the ad hominem manner in which you use ridicule to discount sources you deem inadmissible.

4 The metaphor could also be read in the following way: The UET is said to stand for A. Some legal analysts say that the UET could (also) stand for B. In which B does not refute A. In other words, a SAAB is a "mode of transport" (A), but others state it is a "car" (B), or even a "vehicle" (C). All are true, and no observation excludes any of the other. But even if views are mutually exclusive, according to NPOV we are not to decide which is correct and which is incorrect. See following point.

5 Why do you assert that the sources should not be used because they are wrong? Editors should not interpret anything but limit themselves to presenting the information at hand. The mere reason that you (on what grounds?) are capable of correctly understanding the UET does not mean that other views, however flawed, should be excluded. NPOV stands for the use of all views:

• The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted.
• All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.
• It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.
• Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Please, could you first answer these questions before repeating your arguments which I should not have described as "holding a monologue with platitudes." However, if we are incapable of exchanging arguments I fear we do need a request for comment. Nomen Nescio 12:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This has become absurd: Why do you assert that the sources should not be used because they are wrong? Because we are editing an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge, not a collection of anti-knowledge. Wikipedia is not a random collection of links and superstitions collected from the Internet. If that is all Wikipedia was, you wouldn't need it: you could just use Google. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge. If you want to prove that Bush is a dangerous tyrant, go start a blog. If you are interested in helping to edit an encyclopedia, try to be a bit more cooperative. You are the top contributor to the article, exceeding even "anonymous," which is quite unusual. What is even more unusual, is the very high percentage of your edits that are reverting other people's edits of your unsupported and pov-pushing material. How do you suppose that everyone else is so consistently wrong and you are right?--Paul 17:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported is your POV way of saying I don't like this info therefore it has to be censored. Please read my questions above and answer them. Your failure to answer those questions is the reason I started the RFC. On what grounds do you get to decide what is right and what is wrong? First of all, you are not God. Second, it is not our task to make such a decision, especially when numerous commentators are convinced you are wrong. You are more than aware these sources are not mere opinions fromn blogs. They constitute analysis by legal experts, and as you could have known had you read the links I provided, in controversial articles opinion can be mentioned, with source, so readers can be told about both sides to such a controversy. (see Intelligent design, Scientology, et cetera) Nomen Nescio 10:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The analysis from what you call numerous commentators does not constitute analysis by legal experts. It constitutes analysis from legal commentators. Commenting on legal issues does not make them experts in legal analysis. People who are experts in legal analysis are usually called "judges". You also seem to have ignored the possibility that some of the users who have made reverts or added to this article may in fact have legal experience themselves, maybe as lawyers, law students or paralegals... 172.192.61.189 03:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarify what your point is, please.

• Are you saying that only "judges" are legal experts, and are you thereby asserting that a professor at law who is not a "judge" is not a legal expert? Coincidently, is John Yoo a "judge?" More to the point, on what grounds do you think Elizabeth Holtzman and John Dean -among others- are not experts?
• Are you saying that the opinion of editors should prevail, contrary to Wikipedia policy requiring third party sources?
• The information I refer to is not my opninion, regardless of my expertise (or lack thereof), and is solely based on the analyses used as sources.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious he is not stating only judges are legal experts, he says "are usually called". Try to read more carefully. He is also not stating that opinions of editors should not be included, he is telling you "legal commentators" are not "legal experts". The problem is just your sources the user is stating, they are not from legal experts, they are from commentators. Its almost like using Bill Maher quotes throughout an article, he is a political commentator, but by no means an expert. Just trying to clear up your list as you seem to misunderstand their point. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to get a very uneasy feeling about you following me around Wikipedia. Once again I ask you to stop. As to the ludicrous answer, you know, if you read the article, that commentators refers to legal experts such as the two I mentioned above. Apparently you support anon in the silly notion that only judges are experts. Goodday, let this be your last attempt at imitating stalking.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

I do not know why you are arguing with me, I am explaining what they said since you had trouble understand it, don't get hostile. Like I said, it doesn't say only judges once again your seem to be ignoring the "are usually called", I am not really sure why ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy

When discussing the suggested interpretation of UET we have concluded legal analysts fear it amounts to placing the President above the law. This would make his staement: "if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – so long as I’m the dictator,” very interesting. Such information clearly is relevant therefore I will once again revert the attempt deleting pertinent information. If you feel this is irrelevant, please explain and discuss. Just as you are doing in the paragrahs above. Nomen Nescio 14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What is that joke supposed to show? That Bush doesn't believe he is a dictator? That Bush believes dictators have it easier than he does? That this whole argument is in fact a big joke? keith 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no joke, some editors feel the need to change my edits. This in my mind does not constitute a good faith edit. Which was evident by the way this editor refuses to discuss in a civilized manner. Nomen Nescio 05:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that: "if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – so long as I’m the dictator” is not a joke??? --Paul 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your efforts I am not trying to suggest anything. My opinion is not relevant because it would violate NPOV. I am only presenting the facts as they are known. Nomen Nescio 05:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I think I know your opinion anyway. I must be psychic. As for other editors changing your precious edits, learn to live with it. keith 06:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it wikipedia is not about democracy, but discussing alternative contributions and on the basis of argumentation trying to find consensus. The "tough luck"-principle, does not constitute a good faith way of resolving a dispute. Seeing the reactions here I can't help but be surprised at the overwhelming lack of response to the case I have put forward. Few editors feel the need to refute my arguments through debate, but they are capable of insisting on their POV. Strange. Thank you. Nomen Nescio 11:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The word you are missing, in more ways than one, is collaboration.

Regarding the joke, none of the sources claim it is relevant to UET, nor even mention the term. I don't think it is relevant therefore. Please prove me wrong without resorting to original research. And btw if you aren't aware that is a variation on a very old joke, it wasn't originated by Bush. keith 12:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, collaboration would help. Hwoever, I do not think that editing out information on the basis of the democratic principle is warranted. The truth is not what most people say.

As to the joke, you are right that others have said similar things, but few have been in the position where it could be made real. The crux in this case, is how does this administration respond to the war on terror? Many observe the limiting of civil liberties (warrantless eavesdropping) and the lack of respect for the rule of law (refuting GC, thinking torture is acceptable, violating FISA, UET, et cetera) and think that such policies are not haphazardly formed. Meaning, I do not know it was a joke. I know people say it was, but was it really? In other words, suppose we heard that those involved in the Abu Graib torture scandal made racist and anti-Muslim jokes in 2000. And although you are correct in pointing out they could not have known at the time they would torture people, would that not still add a new perspective to the case? Nomen Nescio 12:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think to delete without discussion and thereby continuing the edit war is very childish of you. Seeing there is no debate possible I will ask for others to share their view. Nomen Nescio 13:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made my point at least three times already. I could say more but most of it would just be criticism of your bullying, pov-pushing, and your ignorance ragarding this article's specific subject and journalistic standards in general. keith 07:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

More information can be found higher up on this talk page, thanks for responding.

RFC on supposedly unsupported quote

Several editors object to the following:

At present, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international.

Their argument is that this statement is not supported by credible sources. They insist that these references do not substantiate the quote above and on the grounds of perceived political orientation are inadmissible: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28].

To illustrate how "incorrect" the disputed text is, look at this almost exact duplicate taken from one of these "irrelevant" links:

Yoo publicly debated last month the radical notion of the "unitary executive" - that the president, as commander-in-chief, is sole judge of the law, unbound by hindrances such as the Geneva conventions, and has inherent authority to subordinate independent government agencies to his fiat.[29]

They seem to ignore Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR as I tried to explain in the discussions above, which can be found here and here. Additional information can be found in the numerous notes and references at the bottom of the article. Nomen Nescio 16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, all I'm saying is that sources that don't support the sentence should be removed or moved to a sentence that they do support. Nomen's position, as I understand it, is that any article that says "Bush exercises too much power" is a supportive cite for the sentence "At present, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international." My feeling is that the cites for that sentence should be limited to cites that actually demonstrate that the adherents of the unitary executive theory and/or John Yoo hold the opinion cited.

In other words, if a wikipedia article says "John Smith thinks alien lizard people have made him queen of england", I would look for cites that say pretty much that - cites that say "John Smith is acting like he's queen of england" or "John Smith thinks he's Queen of England" would be better placed after sentences that say pretty much what the cites say. TheronJ 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument is that the statement has no support. Note that the statement says that ".... the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular." If any of your op-ed pieces has a quote from John Yoo, plus another adherents[s] of the unity executive theory where these people say that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international, I haven't found it. Can you please provide a specific reference (article & paragraph)?

Without such proof, the statement should be reworded to say something like: "Opponents of President Bush maintain that positions taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory imply that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international." This is an entirely different thing and would need an offsetting defense from an UET adherent to maintain balance in the article.--Paul 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly dancing words. Please look at this:

Yoo's interlocutor, Douglass Cassel, a professor at the Notre Dame law school, pointed out that the theory of the unitary executive posits the president above other branches of government: "Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo."

"I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that," said Yoo.[30]

I think it has been substantiated that one interpretation of UET does give the President Royal powers. Regarding Yoo: [31][32][33][34]

The existence of the memo, titled "The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them," was first reported by NEWSWEEK in the fall of 2001.

and

But the memo concludes that this should not in any way restrict the president from ordering whatever military actions "in his best judgment" he believes are necessary to protect the country. In the exercise of his power to use military force, "the president's decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable."

and

But neither the White House nor the Justice Department has ever disavowed - or for that matter publicly discussed - the similar assertions of presidential power in Yoo's Sept. 25, 2001, memo.[35]

Interview PBS with Yoo:

Well, I think in this area, I think the Justice Department had long thought that Congress couldn't limit the commander-in-chief power; that Congress cannot tell the president how to exercise his judgment as commander in chief. [36]

Interestingly enough editors dismiss numerous reports of what proponents thinks the UET stands for, and use that to censor the article. However, part of wikiperia is that they are not prohibited to try and find substantiating evidence they ask for. By dismissing my sources, on political grounds, but refusing to look for any themselves, I cannot help but feel these editors do not contribute in good faith.

But let's try and find compromise, if I understand you correctly, you would not object to this:

At present seceral legal analysts assert that, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international. Nomen Nescio 10:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: "Interestingly enough editors dismiss numerous reports of what proponents thinks the UET stands for, and use that to censor the article." Editors are not "censoring" the article, editors are asking for verifiable citations and proof. Editors correctly dismiss reports by opponents of the UET of what proponents think the UET stands for as being hearsay and second-hand. Editors do not care what the politics of those making second hand claims are. Editors would be much happier and this long and circular discussion would quickly come to an end if we had reports from proponents of UET saying what they think it stands for and means. This is what is called a primary source, and is what is required for serious scholarship. Again, this is the heart of this disagreement. (Also, I intend to comment on this issue further later today or sometime tomorrow, after I read the DOJ Sept. 2001 memo on Presidental powers).--Paul 16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly misstate the reqisite of "verifiable citations and proof." My assertion (based upon the numerous quotations above) is that UET could stand for "X", this claim has been substantiated whith more than sufficient "verifiable citations and proof." You, and others, maintain UET stands for "Y", which is based upon: ......? Part of WP:NPOV is that when there is diffrence of opinion, both interpretations are presented and then readers can decide which is more accurate. Once again I refer to Intelligent design. I see no reason not to mention another interpretation, or in other words (and violating NPOV!) to only discuss the proponents view and totally ignore any dissenting interpretation.

Most importantly, you still have not shown why advancing "Y" is the only correct interpretation. You seem to think that proponents are the only people who can interpret things. If that were true, science is dead, for under your claim anyone challenging a certain idea (known as peer review using the scientific method) is incapable of understanding the subject at hand since he is an opponent. Nomen Nescio 13:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC on statement by Bush

At this time editors feel the following is not relevant to the article:

In addition, they point to a statement by Governor Bush in December 2000 when he joked that:

“if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – so long as I’m the dictator.”

However, since one of the interpretations of the "Unitary Executive theory" holds that the President in his duty as Commander-in-Chief cannot be restrained by law I feel his previous statements regarding such powers, just as is done in a court of law, are interesting and highly pertinent. Without explaining why previous statements are inadmissible it is repeatedly edited out.[37]

As to these war powers, the idea is explained in the article itself, with sources, and in two paragraphs above which are here and here. Thank you.Nomen Nescio 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that UET equals dictatorship. Not do I agree that even the broadest interpretation of it can be construed as placing the president above all laws. That is just an anarchist's hyperbole. The constitution only places the president above the laws that congress passes which specifically encroach on executive power laid out in the constitution. From the very start we are talking about a certain subset of laws (which relate to foreign policy). Not all of them. A dictator is the law. Of course the president is restrained by law. He could be impeached at any time. There are other remedies as well but that one is the most cut and dried. And congress can pass any law they want regarding domestic policy and the president must execute it, or again they will impeach him. Even on something as minor as perjury...

Therefore I object to the inclusion of arguments who's sole relevance is to dictatorship accusations. Especially really bad arguments based on thought-policing of jokes. Though I actually don't care all that much about this one since I think it only serves to establish that Mr. "Weiner" has no sense of humor. keith 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what you think. It is about presenting all the facts, even if we disagree. Nomen Nescio 16:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's factual that Bush said such a thing, and regardless of whether UET is considered equivalent to dictatorship, it's a joke. Its only relevance when discussing Bush's actual beliefs and desires is as a wink-wink-nudge-nudge way of implying that the joke reveals Bush's true intentions. This implication is completely unsupported, so the joke doesn't belong. Ken Arromdee 17:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point: if there is signficant commentary in the press linking the two, if Bush is on record as speaking out, if the facts can be verified from reliable sources, then they can be included. I don't fully understand the issue itself, I'll read up, but those are the policy and precedent. Guy 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Relevant : IMHO, the quote isn't relevant. There's no evidence that Bush's beliefs about dictatorship have influenced the development of the unitary executive theory, which is a legal theory that predates Bush and has been developed by lawyers, not by Bush. TheronJ 15:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Relevant : This isn't a fact germane to this article, it is an out of context joke. Editing does not consist of collecting facts, it consists of filtering, highlighting and omitting facts. The use of this "joke" in the quoted op ed piece and in this article does not show that Bush has dictatorial leanings (which is the not so subtle intent), as much as it shows his most extreme foes have no sense of humor and have a tenuous relationship with reality. It is POV-pushing and does not belong. --Paul 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Relevant : As per Paul above - JustinWick 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another example of a bad faith edit

Paul.h writes to justify redacting out articles: unrelated to Unitary Executive Theory[38]:

Our questions in this hearing is: What is your view of the unitary presidency?..........................He distanced himself from the theory of the so-called unitary executive, one that promotes extremely expanded executive power.U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court: Part I of III. The article mentions "unitary executive" 13 times(!) and "unitary presidency" 5 times.

In speaking in 2001 to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, Alito described himself as a strong proponent of the theory of the "unitary executive." The concept holds that the Constitution vests sweeping federal executive power in the president.Alito faces harder review Scrutiny likely on executive power, in light of 1984 memo, NSA spying Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Baltimore Sun, December 25, 2005. The article mentions "unitary executive" 2 times

Despite this these article are unrelated(?????!). Nomen Nescio 17:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are obviously unrelated. They are about Alito, not about the unitary executive theory. Thank you for providing quotes that prove my point. Not every article that has the words unitary exective is about the unitary executive theory. As to "bad faith edit" please try to do something about that chip on your shoulder. Start by considering that other editors may have the same altruistic and positive desire to improve this article as you do, and that their modifications of your work may not animated by personal animus or political agenda. --Paul 17:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

These articles might be relevant if attached to an appropriate sentence. The first one shows Biden and Kennedy's attempts to characterize the unitary executive theory, and Alito's responses, so I guess it's relevant to the UE theory's impact on politics. Somebody needs to go through the whole article and lay it out. The UE theory was basically invented by Calebrisi and Rhodes, and they have argued that some prior actions can be interpreted in light of it. It seems to me that a logical way to write the article would be:

1 Introduction

2 Development of the UE Theory (discussion in the legal press, citations to the theory by the DOJ and courts, etc).

3 Political Impact of the UE Theory

4 Popular Concepts of the UE Theory TheronJ 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, pehaps, "4 Popular Misconceptions of the UE Theory" --Paul 14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

speaking of bad faith...

Reverting edits made in good faith immediately after they are made is irritating and hostile to collaboration. Especially when you obviously don't take the time to consider their reasons. Please explain to me why this quote:

"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

Needs to be included in addition to (and immediately following) this quote:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.^[39]

Is that sneaky little insertion of [torture ban] supposed to be the added value? keith 23:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The question should be, why is the much too elaborate quote not deleted? You let this incomprehensible text stay, whereas my suggestion would be to keep the shorter and more succinct part you feel the need to get rid of. In light of the lenght of the article I would prefer to keep the first quoete.

Second, I fail to understand why you use this tone of voice. I make one edit, restoring the succinct part and you explode. Rather odd. Nomen Nescio 23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did get annoyed when you reverted my very technical edit. I believe my first sentence explains why, as does the red banner above. You obviously acted under the assumption that I was pushing some pov rather than just removing repetition. please be more careful in the future.

I'm sure I couldn't care less which quote is saved. Shorten it if you like. One problem however is that referring to the bill as a "torture ban" is a pov and the actual text should be used. Especially since it is being used to criticize the person making the quote. keith 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why I cut out most of the article

It is quite obvious that this article is far too overblown for a simnple definition of UET. The reason why I edited out the majority of the article is that it is superfluous in context. There needs to be an article outlying the uses of UET by various presidents, or the articles of those presidents need to be amended to incorporate this data. I am one of the mosthardcore leftists that I know, and, that being said, think that the list of uses of UET is not necessary for the scope of this article. I personally think UET is a horrible and despicable idea, but its article need not have so many references to specific instances of its use.Azureprophet 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck trying to make any difference. --Ajdz 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguing in stead of recklessly deleting contents never hurt anybody. So, feel free to explain why examples of its use are irrelevant, why criticism should not be included, and of course why is it important to delete sections while the article needs more work on the details of what constitutes UET but that simply is not done. The attention stays focussed on deleting criticism, why? Nomen Nescio 12:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Far be it from me to defend Nescio's "contributions", but this is not supposed to be a simple dictionary. A better criticism would be that the vast numbers of obviously biased references are not even worth reading, much less referring to in an encyclopedia. keith 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can the honourable editors stop asserting things and finally try and progress towards substantiating their claims. For the millionth time (read this page!!!) here is wikipedia policy:

• WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
• Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

Before yet again inserting POV assumptions, could the editors first address these quotes and otherwise stop claiming the sources can't be used! Nomen Nescio 14:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My Thoughts on Nomen's Edits

I swear, any minute now, I'm going to polish up this article until it shines.  ;) In the meantime, here are my thoughts:

(1) The endnotes are a nightmare. Is there any way to fix them so that they aren't constantly misaligned with the text as a result of all this accordioning? Altnerately, could we just have in-line citations?

(2) Nomen's right that NPOV means that, if there is a community of people alarmed that the Bush administration is using unitary executive theory to assume dictatorial powers, there should be a section of the article discussing that. I would ask, however, that it be phrased basically like I just said. In other words, write "numerous writers have expressed concern that Bush is a big doo doohead," not "Bush is a big doo doo head" (see numerous writers), and I don't think we'll have a debate. In particular, remember Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Law.TheronJ 14:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ad 1: I will redo the Notes, but not before later today. Just give me some time.

Ad 2: If everybody agrees criticism is allowed, I am more than willing to refrase any sentence that is POV. So, if editors can show what sentence they object to we can try and progress towards compromise. That is all I wanted in the first place: debate. Thank you. Nomen Nescio 15:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We will take the lack of response (yet again) as evidence that:

1. There is no interest in substantiating wild assertions,
2. There are no POV sentences.

Nomen Nescio 12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on RfC

user:Nescio added a RfC for this article. It went like this

• Talk:Unitary_Executive_theory#Request_for_comment Repost because of continuing dispute and lack of response. In the article Unitary Executive theory, some editors feel the need to dismiss mentioning the interpretation of the UET by critics. These editors argue that the sources are 1 not discussing the UET, 2 biased, 3 wrong, 4 that the only people qualified to make any observations are proponents of the theory, anyone else is incapable of understanding it. However, according to WP:NPOV, dissenting views are no reason for not discussing other interpretations on controversial topics. Could you form an opinion on whether or not the provided sources are admissible and share it with us?17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC) [40]

I have cut away the bottom part because it is obviously not a "breif, neutral statement". ([41]), but now there isn't much left.

Those who respond to RfC, like myself, would be grateful if someone else would try to write a brief and neutral explanation of the dispute of this page. Thanks. Fred-Chess 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My attempt at a "brief, neutral statement"

I'm not 100% sure what the debate is myself, even though I'm apparently on the other side of it.  :) I think a brief, neutral statement, would go like this.

• Nomen Nescio argues that the following statement and citations should be included, without changes, in the discussion of the unitary executive theory:

At present, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international. [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53].

• A number of editors have raised the following objections: (1) Some of the citations do not discuss either the unitary executive theory or John Yoo, and therefore do not support the sentence and should be removed. (2) None of the citations supports the sentence as currently phrased, which is that the Bush administration and John Yoo believe that the unitary executive theory "holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international." The sentence should therefore be rewritten to something more like "Critics of the Bush administration allege that the unitary executive theory holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international." (3) In addition, I would argue that most of the citations don't meet Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Law, and that the sentence (as rewritten in #2) would be supported with 2-3 articles containing real legal analysis.
• As I understand his response, Nomen argues that (1) any citation that says President Bush is exercising broad power supports the statement that Bush believes that the unitary executive theory grants him broad power; (2) this is an issue of law on which people can have different opinions, so if some people believe that Bush believes that the unitary executive theory means that he cannot be restrained by any law, then NPOV requires that the statement be presented as fact; and (3) NPOV requires us to accept all citations, whether or not from attorneys and whether or not the cited materials discuss the unitary executive theory specifically.

I've taken a shot at summarizing everyone's position, but let me know if I've left anything out. TheronJ 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely correct. My position is that since the UET is a theory, there exist different interpretations of what it could mean. So this has to result in presenting all of these interpretations. I stress interpretations since nobody has explained why interpretation is equal to fact. Therefore opninion can be presented as opninion, regardless of whether it is inconvenient to the Bush administration.

As to the presented sentence, I do not insist on that. I have already suggested a slight rewording to make it more evident it is opinion. Nobody felt the need to response. To state I only want this and nothing else is an erroneuous and misleading comment. Here is my suggestion again:

At present seceral legal analysts assert that, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers can not be restrained by any law, national or international.

However, for those interested in facts, I have already presented (read this page) several references that explicitly cite John Yoo and his view on the UET substantiating the original sentence.

As to the sources I fail to see on what grounds the provided sources can't be used. The argument by editors has been 1 they do not discuss the UET - to those reading them this is blatantly false, 2 the sources are biased - under wikipedia policy this is not sufficient to dismiss sources, 3 the sources are wrong - no editor has explained why the advanced interpretation is wrong except from assering that only proponents are capable of understanding the theory. Among the people not qualified to comment on the subject (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Law):

• Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree
• Elizabeth de la Vega has served more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Minneapolis and San Jose
• Roger A. White is a trial attorney
• Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, President-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists
• Edward Lazarus is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School
• Martin Garbus trial lawyer

Regarding the abundance of sources, I am more than willing to reduce them to 1-2 per statement. This has been impossible since people insist there exists no other interpretation. By inserting as many sources as I can find (from legal experts, so don't suggest that is not the case!) I hoped to show there was sufficient reason to include criticism in the article. Nomen Nescio 12:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You must have missed this above: "The analysis from what you call numerous commentators does not constitute analysis by legal experts. It constitutes analysis from legal commentators. Commenting on legal issues does not make them experts in legal analysis. People who are experts in legal analysis are usually called "judges". You also seem to have ignored the possibility that some of the users who have made reverts or added to this article may in fact have legal experience themselves, maybe as lawyers, law students or paralegals... 172.192.61.189 03:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)". Instead of looking at the point made, that legal commentators aren't necessarily legal experts, you argue that something else was said, and that the point therefore was invalid.172.190.165.253 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood from [this] reversion to my edits that you were opposed to any removal of any of your citations - I did, in fact, reduce one of your string cites to 2-3 citations, and you reverted. TheronJ 14:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I thought opponents dismissed criticism period, I insisted upon as much references as possible so nobody could maintain any criticism is unsubstantiated. If however we can finally agree criticism is substantiated and therefore allowed, of course one or two references suffice. But, in light of the strong resistance to inserting dissenting views I think leaving more than one reference would be good to prevent another discussion in which editors claim there are insufficient sources to support these views critical of the Bush administration. Nomen Nescio 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The originally quoted sentence is a fundamentally flawed example of link spam, hyperbole, and misunderstanding the U.S. Constitution. Good luck though. You're going to need it. --Ajdz 07:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for Ajdz to refrain from making personal attacks in his very conspicuous attempt to obfuscate the subject (yet again)?

• "misunderstanding the U.S. Constitution" on what grounds do you assert that the legal experts I use as source are wrong?
• "hyperbole" on what grounds do you assert that the legal experts I use as source are exaggerating?
• "link spam" should you insist that nobody supports the suggested criticism, you leave me no choice than to insert as many references as possible to prove you are making unwarranted claims just to censor information you wish to remain hidden.

Please substantiate these wild accusations or keep your opninions to yourself as they do not constitute good faith Nomen Nescio 09:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please get over yourself. 12 sources for a single sentence is objectively spam. I believe I addressed your other issues a while back during some of the earlier fanatical reversions. Here's a suggestion - go write your manifesto, put it online somewhere else, and it can get an "external link." --Ajdz 17:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that you (Ajdz) agree criticism is allowed? If so, I can finally reduce the number of evidently superfluous references as to make the article more readable. And no, you never did explain why these legal experts are incapable of understanding the theory. Nomen Nescio 01:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never objected to the existence of "criticism" - just terribly written or irrelevant forms. Please consider the manifesto advice. --Ajdz 03:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Once more I will humbly ask you to show what sentence you think is "terribly written or irrelevant." If you only gave an example editors could suggest improvements, which is more constructive than merely asserting things. Nomen Nescio 10:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I commented here to address TheronJ's contributions. Beyond that, you know what I'm talking about, or have some very serious memory problems (original talk pages appear to have been destroyed for the purposes of direct evidence). Regardless, your behavior is abominable, not humble. --Ajdz 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept the current abominable behaviour is the result of me reacting instinctively. It would however help if you accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and humour my stupidity by showing an example of sentences you think are "terribly written or irrelevant." I honestly can't remember those examples you previously gave. Nomen Nescio 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)