Unitary Executive II: The Unitarying

Bumped because I fleshed it out.

Via Yglesias, Rudy Giuliani is insane:

Rudy was asked about the Iraq supplemental. He said he finds it "irresponsible and dangerous." Then he began to muse about, after a veto, "would the president have the constitutional authority to support them [the troops], anyway?" He said he's a lawyer so he wouldn't offer an opinion "off the top of his head," then he proceeded to do just that. He seemed to suggest that Bush could fund the Iraq war without Congress providing funding, but it was confusing. In an interview with a New Hampshire TV reporter after his remarks, he seemed more categorical and said, since the war had been authorized by Congress, the president has "the inherent authority to support the troops." But he added, "You have to ask a constitutional lawyer."

It seems impossible, but based on this quote, it appears that Rudy Giuliani is MORE dismissive of American government and the separation of powers than the current occupant of the office. And this is why I think he has the inside track to the Republican nomination.

The social issues are a red herring; yes, he differs from the conservative party line on choice and guns and gays, but he's finessing each issue. We have a President who for six years has been ranting that "the most important part of my job is keeping America safe." And under this regime, that has translated into wielding supreme executive power, putting fanciful notions of security ahead of civil liberties, Congressional authority, the vastness of public opinion, etc., etc.

It's a simple equation; Rudy's the biggest authoritarian. And the modern Republican Party will swoon at that prospect. Look at what he's saying here. He believes that the Congress has one shot to weigh in on foreign policy matters, and once they do so, no matter how much events on the ground have changed, they forfeit their right to say anything about the policy from that point on. What kind of government is he describing?

In a brief press availability in front of his campaign bus, I asked Rudy whether he was saying Bush could veto the supplemental and, in the absence of a deal with Congress, fund the troops in Iraq under his own authority. "If he vetoes it, he's going to have to find a way to support the troops," Rudy said. "They have given him the authorization to fight the war," and "Bush has the power to redirect the money and time to work something out" with Congress. The last bit suggests that maybe Rudy is thinking in terms of only the next few weeks and not making a broader claim about presidential authority (although he kept on saying "inherent authority" over and over).

I completely disagree with Rich Lowry (no surprise). Rudy is not thinking in terms of only the next few weeks; he's an egomaniac who thinks that the job he covets is that of a supreme emperor, a position with no constraints and no strings attached. To his credit, Lowry did agree that Rudy is wrong here. But if he was President, the "wrongness" of his position wouldn't matter. He'd claim an even more extreme form of executive power than we have now, and since the whole country is used to such a power grab, and since constitutional lawyers could then use Bush Administration policies as a precedent, he'd be able to at least make the argument.

Rudy Giuliani is at once the most dangerous man in America running for President, and the most likely to win the hearts of the authoritarian worshippers that make up a large chunk of the Republican base. The Democrats' challenge will be to link this strain of authoritarianism to Giuliani and, by extension, Bush. They exist on a continuum. Right now Rudy is seen as a kindly moderate and separate from the White House. The challenge will be to change that dynamic.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, and Rudy's third wife is hands-off (I mean hey, what's a little dog-killing amongst friends?). The only person that gets to humiliate Giuliani's wives is Giuliani.