New York Times Botches Unitary Executive Theory, a Core Legal Concept

‘Reporting from Washington,” the New York Times’ Alan Rappeport serves up this little gem, as part of a confused piece on Russell T. Vought, Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget:

Oh dear. Perhaps, for a while at least, Rappeport ought to consider reporting from a fifth-grade civics class. Not only is his description of unitary executive theory incorrect, it is completely, utterly, unequivocally backwards. Pace Rappeport, proponents of that idea do not “reject” the notion that the government is composed of three separate branches; they endorse it wholeheartedly. Indeed, ensuring that there are three branches of government — and that their functions remain discrete — is the entire purpose of the claim. Given the disproportionate number of powers that were granted to Congress, some may quibble with the Wilson-era addition of “but equal” in the description. But that is immaterial to the underlying aim of those who desire a unitary executive — which is to praise the separation of powers, rather than to bury it.

About the Author

Charles C. W. Cooke

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.

Featured Tags

Constitutional Government

‘Reporting from Washington,” the New York Times’ Alan Rappeport serves up this little gem, as part of a confused piece on Russell T. Vought, Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget:

Oh dear. Perhaps, for a while at least, Rappeport ought to consider reporting from a fifth-grade civics class. Not only is his description of unitary executive theory incorrect, it is completely, utterly, unequivocally backwards. Pace Rappeport, proponents of that idea do not “reject” the notion that the government is composed of three separate branches; they endorse it wholeheartedly. Indeed, ensuring that there are three branches of government — and that their functions remain discrete — is the entire purpose of the claim. Given the disproportionate number of powers that were granted to Congress, some may quibble with the Wilson-era addition of “but equal” in the description. But that is immaterial to the underlying aim of those who desire a unitary executive — which is to praise the separation of powers, rather than to bury it.