No.
Our government was purposely created with power split between three branches, not concentrated in one.
Separation of powers, then, is not simply a talisman: It is the foundation of our system. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, No. 47, that:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
Another early American, George Nicholas, eloquently articulated the concept of “power divided” in one of his letters:
“The most effectual guard which has yet been discovered against the abuse of power, is the division of it. It is our happiness to have a constitution which contains within it a sufficient limitation to the power granted by it, and also a proper division of that power. But no constitution affords any real security to liberty unless it is considered as sacred and preserved inviolate; because that security can only arise from an actual and not from a nominal limitation and division of power.”
Yet it seems a nominal limitation and division of power - with real power concentrated solely in the “unitary executive” - is exactly what President Bush seeks.
By consistently ignoring and circumventing the laws of this country, this President and Vice President subvert our constitutional government. An all-powerful executive branch is tyranny, not democracy. Call it a king, call it a dictator, call it a “unitary executive” - changing the name doesn’t change the reality.
Language games of the right - clean air, no child left behind, unitary executive…
And don’t look to Congress, I’m afraid. They are all too willing to hand over their own powers as well as those of the judicial branch. Look at them getting ready to confirm Alito after that joke of a hearing. He’s a big “unitary executive” fan. So very “open-minded”? - his record begs to differ.
brokr on 
Mary on 
4:22 pm on January 13th, 2006 1
One of my ongoing projects is to trace the modern conservative movement through its intellectual and philosophical foundations. The primary foundation of conservatism has ALWAYS been “limited government”. There is no way to square the justification for warrantless eavesdropping with a limited government.
My, how far they have fallen. Barry Goldwater was right - there would be no room for him at the table of modern Conservatism.
XT
2:08 am on January 14th, 2006 2
Not just Goldwater-these nutjobs have managed to isolate someone as right-wing as Bob Barr, and kick him over the fence into an active opposition.
“Conservatism” is the fig leaf Shrubberalism uses to disguise its real objectives-total control over the Government and media, and the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich.