He appears to be a proponent of Unitary Executive Theory.
Articles I, II, and III, have nearly identical clauses vesting the legislative, judicial, and executive power, respectively, in Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court.
Does anyone think Congress can create a law that enables the legislative or judicial powers to be exercised by employees independent of the control of the constitutional actors in which those powers are vested? It would be madness to say that Congress can create a law creating an entity in the judicial branch that can adjudicate cases without oversight from an Article III judge. Nobody thinks that’s true.
Yes.
Apart from the specific enumerated executive powers in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, the "executive power of the United States" is whatever the Congress says it is. If Article II Section 1 had been intended as a preemptive, unitary-executive grant, there'd have been no reason to enumerate specific powers.
As has been remarked, there's a reason Article I (concerning Congress) comes first.
In Commonwealth Nations "the Crown" has ultimate deciding power, however "the Crown" simultaneously refers to functions of the executive, legislative (parliament), and judicial (Supreme Court and others), governance and the civil service. A Crown Prosecutor is equally known as "the Crown", as the monarch. Both are two very different individuals, but possess the same power, and use "the" nomenclature.
In your construction, all the work is being done by your use of the word “available.” But the constitution doesn’t say “the executive power is available to the President.” It says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The word “vested” means “secured in the possession of or assigned to a person.” So the executive power isn’t merely available to the President. It’s assigned to and given to the possession of the President.
Your Crown example actually proves the opposite of your point. That phraseology reflects the traditional british notion that all executive power is vested in the king, who is the chief prosecutor but may act through delegates: https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/con... (p. 1707).
In your construction, all the work is being done by "the." OK, let's play the same game, this time with the word executive: Suppose that Congress, using its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause, creates separate governmental agencies — not subject to plenary presidential supervision — and gives those agencies the power to carry out specified tasks. You're complaining that this falls within the definition of "executive" power and thus must be presidentially supervised. The obvious response is: OK, we won't call it "executive" power, we'll call it something else. Word games? Sure, but that's what you're doing.
But, someone might respond, the term "executive power" must be interpreted today as it supposedly was understood by the Framers in 1787. That ipse-dixit contention is purely a matter of what Justice White aptly referred to in Roe as "raw judicial power" — and recall that after Dred Scott, a more-extreme version of such a contention was finally resolved at Appomattox as the culmination of four years of bloody civil war.
The Crown example still works as the Parliament is not selected by the monarch. It is not elected by the monarch. The monarch does not possess the power to reject them. Yet, the Parliament are still referred to as "the Crown", and possesses the executive power of the Crown.
Equally so, the Governor General of any Commonwealth Nation is free to reject the orders of the monarch, as they possess the executive power of the Crown. The monarch is also free to fire them for doing so, as the monarch also has the power of the Crown. Both are on equal footing. In the words of Whitlam "Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the governor-general."
Multiple people have possession of the executive power in such systems, even though the word "the" is used to refer to it. That alone is not enough to indicate that a singular individual controls it.
Article I and Article III have nearly identical language. Nobody thinks Congressional staffers or judicial law clerks impose “checks and balances” on the elected or appointed officials that hold the constitutional office. Why is the President any different?
Not to say that I think this good policy or constitution design – it grants the President an essentially monarchical position. As The Knoxville Journal once said (9 February 1896), "Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king". I think the more collegial form of executive branch leadership found in the Westminster system – in which a Prime Minister has to continually keep the confidence of their party, since they can be removed at any time for any reason (no allegations of misconduct required); in which Cabinet makes decisions by majority vote (and the PM sometimes loses the vote), unlike the US Cabinet where no votes are taken – leads to better governance.
Maybe, one day, "Prime Minister of the United States" will be a real job title
The check and balance within every branch is the law, one which many state AG and court officials believe or have ruled is being violated.
The law is quite literally a limit on arbitrary uses of power. It is a check on concentrated power, and balances competing interests.
> Who did it?
Oligarchs.
H1B visa/undocumented labor are an anti labor power policy. Not only does it increase the supply of the workforce suppressing wages, but it gives companies coercive power over foreign laborers, preventing them from ever going on strike or asking for rights. Worse, when things start going poorly, oligarchs blame these people who just wanted a better life and then use the oligarchy controlled media to deflect people's rage away from the people hoarding wealth and power onto someone weaker than them, which gives them a sense of agency.
“The law” is it enforced and interpreted by humans. And the fundamental axiom of the constitution is that nobody can be trusted. Do you think the framers went to all that trouble to create this tripartite system, and then assume that all three branches would be checked by unelected prosecutors? If what you said was true, why does the constitution not mention an attorney general that could enforce “the law?”