It would be a constitutional mistake for the Roberts Court to overturn Humphrey's Executor and embrace an extreme version of the Unitary Executive Theory
I have been saying for decades that I wish that the Constitution would have come with a concordat like the Christians have for their Bible.
It's hard for the average citizen to understand what the framers of the Constitution had in mind from the bare text of the document.
For example, they believed that a war should last no longer than two years, and if it was to go on longer, the generals had to go back to Congress and explain why they needed more money. That is enshrined in the Constitution in the clause that limits an appropriation for the military to two years, but the reasoning behind that clause is never explained.
After 200 years, it would be helpful to have a document that says explicitly what they wanted.
I have been saying for decades that I wish that the Constitution would have come with a concordat like the Christians have for their Bible.
It's hard for the average citizen to understand what the framers of the Constitution had in mind from the bare text of the document.
For example, they believed that a war should last no longer than two years, and if it was to go on longer, the generals had to go back to Congress and explain why they needed more money. That is enshrined in the Constitution in the clause that limits an appropriation for the military to two years, but the reasoning behind that clause is never explained.
After 200 years, it would be helpful to have a document that says explicitly what they wanted.
*concordance* not concordat