WHY THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY WAS TOTAL BULLSHIT
A TIME-TRAVELING DEBATE WITH CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
October 25, 2025, Philadelphia, Constitutional Convention Hall (Reimagined)
In an unprecedented breach of the space-time continuum, Chief Justice John Roberts finds himself transported to 1787, facing a room of wig-wearing, quill-wielding Founding Fathers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The topic? The Unitary Executive Theory (UET), which Roberts defends as a robust interpretation of Article II, vesting all executive power in the President with near-unlimited control over the executive branch. The Founders, fresh from their rebellion against a king, are unimpressed. They call it "bullshit" (or the 18th-century equivalent—let’s say "poppycock"). What follows is a lively, satirical debate where Roberts’ modern legalism collides with the Founders’ revolutionary pragmatism.
Chief Justice John Roberts: Gentlemen, I stand before you to defend the Unitary Executive Theory, a doctrine rooted in Article II of your Constitution. The Vesting Clause—“The executive Power shall be vested in a President”—implies a singular, undivided authority. The President must have plenary control over the executive branch, including the power to remove all officers at will, to ensure accountability and efficient governance. This is the original intent, is it not?
George Washington: (adjusting his spectacles, looking stern) Poppycock, sir! I led an army against a king who wielded unchecked power. We didn’t spill blood at Valley Forge to swap one tyrant for another. The President is no monarch. Congress, representing the people, must have a say in structuring the government. Your theory sounds like a recipe for despotism, cloaked in legal jargon.
Roberts: General Washington, with respect, the Constitution you helped craft vests executive power solely in the President, not Congress. Without unified control, the executive branch becomes a hydra—many-headed, chaotic, unaccountable. The “Take Care” Clause further obliges the President to direct all officers to faithfully execute the laws.
Thomas Jefferson: (leaning back, smirking) Oh, please, Mr. Chief Justice. Your reading of Article II is as fanciful as a French novel. The Vesting Clause? It merely designates where executive power resides, not its scope. I wrote a few things about government, you know, and I assure you, we meant to limit power, not inflate it. Your theory would let a President fire anyone who disagrees with him—sounds like King George III with better hair. We fought a revolution to escape that nonsense.
Roberts: Mr. Jefferson, the President is elected by the people, unlike a king. Unified control ensures democratic accountability. If the President can’t remove officers, independent fiefdoms arise, defying the will of the electorate.
John Adams: (banging his fist) Balderdash! Democratic accountability? The people elect Congress, too, sir! Your theory guts their power to structure the executive branch. In 1789, we debated removal powers in Congress, and I’ll remind you, we didn’t agree the President should have a blank check to fire everyone. I warned about monarchs in my Defence of the Constitutions. Your unitary executive smells like a crown, polished with Federalist paper citations.
Roberts: (adjusting his robe, undeterred) Mr. Adams, the Federalist Papers—penned by some in this room—support a strong executive to avoid the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton himself argued for energy in the executive in Federalist No. 70.
Alexander Hamilton: (raising an eyebrow, sipping Madeira) Don’t drag me into this, Roberts. Yes, I wanted a vigorous executive—energy, not tyranny. In Federalist No. 77, I wrote that the Senate’s consent could be required for removals. Your theory, with its “at-will” firings, turns the President into a puppeteer, pulling every string in the government. That’s not energy; that’s a one-man show. Even I, who loved a strong government, knew limits were essential. Your unitary nonsense would make Burr’s schemes look tame.
Roberts: (slightly flustered) Mr. Hamilton, surely you’d agree that independent agencies—like your modern Federal Reserve—undermine the President’s ability to execute policy. The Constitution doesn’t mention these “fourth branch” entities.
Benjamin Franklin: (chuckling, adjusting his bifocals) Oh, young man, your “fourth branch” jab is cute, but it’s hogwash. We didn’t mention a lot of things—telegraphs, steamboats, or this “internet” you prattle about. The Constitution was a framework, not a blueprint for every future contraption. Congress has the power to create offices and set their terms. If they want a postmaster or a tax collector insulated from presidential whims, that’s their prerogative. Your theory assumes we were too daft to trust Congress with such authority. I’ve seen smarter arguments in a tavern brawl.
Roberts: Dr. Franklin, with respect, unchecked independent agencies risk bureaucratic tyranny. The President must control them to reflect the people’s will, as expressed in elections.
John Jay: (calmly, with a lawyer’s precision) Mr. Roberts, your argument is a castle built on sand. The Constitution’s text is clear: Article I gives Congress the power to create and structure offices. The Necessary and Proper Clause lets them design agencies as they see fit. Your unitary theory pretends Congress is a bystander in governance. I helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris to end a war against centralized power. We didn’t create a system where one man could bully every official into submission. That’s not law; it’s autocracy dressed in a black robe.
Roberts: (regaining composure) Gentlemen, consider modern governance. The executive branch is vast—millions of employees, thousands of decisions. Without unitary control, the President can’t coordinate policy. The Supreme Court, in cases like Myers v. United States, has recognized the President’s broad removal power.
James Madison: (standing, quill in hand) Enough of this twaddle, sir! I’m the “Father of the Constitution,” and I say your theory is a perversion of our design. In the Convention, we rejected proposals for a council to check the President because we trusted Congress and the courts to balance power. Your Myers case? Overruled in part by Humphrey’s Executor in 1935, which upheld Congress’s right to protect certain officers from arbitrary dismissal. Your unitary executive would let a President weaponize the government—prosecutions, regulations, even elections—against foes. That’s not a presidency; it’s a dictatorship with a term limit.
Roberts: (sweating slightly) Mr. Madison, Seila Law in 2020 reaffirmed the President’s removal power over agencies like the CFPB. The Court has trended toward recognizing the unitary executive’s constitutional basis.
Madison: (glaring) Trends, you say? Your Court’s recent whims don’t rewrite our intent. We built a system of checks and balances, not a throne. Your theory risks what I warned against in Federalist No. 51: factionalism and tyranny. If one man controls every lever of the executive, he can crush dissent, favor cronies, and erode liberty. We saw it with King George. We designed a government to prevent it, not invite it.
Franklin: (grinning) Besides, Roberts, your unitary executive sounds exhausting. One man overseeing every tax collector, soldier, and clerk? He’d have no time to govern—he’d be too busy firing people. I’d rather spend my days inventing a lightning rod than managing that mess.
Washington: (standing, commanding silence) Enough. Mr. Roberts, your theory is a dangerous fantasy. We fought for a republic, not a monarchy with a four-year lease. The President serves the people, not the other way around. Congress, the courts, and the states are coequal partners. Your unitary executive is a betrayal of our blood and ink. Take your theory back to 2025 and leave our Constitution alone.
Roberts: (stammering) But… the Constitution… original intent…
Jefferson: (waving dismissively) Original intent? We intended freedom, not a king in a suit. Your theory is bullshit, sir—pardon my French. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we have a republic to build.
As Roberts vanishes back to 2025, the Founders share a laugh and a round of ale, muttering about “modern lawyers” and their “poppycock.”
Analysis and Satirical Wrap-Up
The Unitary Executive Theory, with its claim of absolute presidential control, is a lightning rod for criticism, and the Founders’ fictional takedown highlights why. They saw unchecked power as the enemy of liberty, fresh from their revolt against a king. The Vesting Clause, they argue, isn’t a blank check; it’s a starting point, tempered by Congress’s Article I powers and the judiciary’s role. Historical practice, from the First Congress to landmark cases like Humphrey’s Executor, supports their view: independence for certain officers prevents tyranny and ensures expertise. The Founders’ rejection of UET as “bullshit” reflects their fear of centralized power, a fear grounded in their revolutionary experience.
Roberts’ defense, rooted in modern originalism and cases like Seila Law, falters against the Founders’ pragmatic vision. They didn’t trust one man to wield total control, knowing human nature’s flaws. The theory’s critics today echo this, warning of autocracy, politicized agencies, and eroded checks. In this satirical debate, the Founders remind us: a government of laws, not men, requires balance, not a unitary sledgehammer. As Franklin might quip, “A President with all the power is like a kite in a storm—bound to crash.”
