The US has three branches of government.

If you believe the NSF is independent then you are implicitly agreeing with those who claim there is a fourth 'deep state' branch of government that operates without accountability.

Separately: I cited the law that says the president can fire the head of the NSF. So I'm not sure why you'd conclude that any disagreement would be a problem for the president.

Nah, people have got to stop buying into this unitary executive stuff! Independent agencies have oversight and accountability. Congress can do whatever they want with them whenever they want.

I think it's imminently reasonable to say that agencies shouldn't be independent of the executive, and that's the default if the legislation passed by Congress (and signed by the current executive!) doesn't specify otherwise. But Congress should, and I believe does, have the power to set things up otherwise.

I agree but only to the point that an independent agency setup by Congress exercises powers granted Congress by the Constitution and does not conflict with powers explicitly granted to other branches.

(And it's pretty unclear to me how the NSF, which is ultimately a method for Congress to spend money, could relate to any Executive powers)

Yeah that's the thing, what powers are even granted directly to the executive by the text? It seems to me that the whole unitary executive theory is based on the clause "The executive Power shall be vested in a President", where "the executive power" is never well defined.

The President commands the military, negotiates treaties, nominates various officials for confirmation. Probably the most leeway relates to being called to ensure laws are faithfully executed.

So it seems reasonable the Executive can police independent agencies to ensure they operate as authorized by law, but I don't see how that challenges the establishment or existence of lawful independent agencies.

NSF is one thing but say an independent agency that does things like negotiate treaties or command the military or nominate Supreme Court justices should be off the table

(But on the other hand, theoretically the Executive should be able to voluntarily authorize legislation that enables those things if they wanted to. Just saying I can see cooperation possible but a veto override probably won't work to force it on an unwilling Executive).

I meant my question to be a rhetorical question, but that was totally unclear in what I wrote. What I meant was to imply "the executive isn't even granted very many powers directly in the text".

I agree with you about the powers you enumerated.

Seems unconstitutional for congress to be able to create a regulatory agency fully outside of the executive's control, as who will check the congress's power? Appointment and confirmation exists so both branches must assent to all officers of then government

> who will check the congress's power

The judiciary. E.g Bowsher v. Synar

Yeah this is a silly argument. The check on the actions of independent agencies is the same as the check on the actions of all agencies. The executive obviously isn't a check on the actions of executive agencies...

The Judicial Branch is supposed to provide oversight over the Executive and Legislative Branch.

Bills also require the president to sign them, though a supermajority of Congress could override the veto.

It's not unconstitutional, it's already been done and the supreme court says it's fine.

They decide what is and is not constitutional, not you. And, contrary to what Internet armchair "textualists" will proclaim, most of the constitution is up for interpretation and actually quite vague.

We've been debating the constitution since the moment we lifted the pen. Or, er, quill. Have some humility.