As Lev Menand mentioned in a recent Odd Lots episode (22m10), it was one of the reasons for the separation of powers (cites UK's Glorious Revolution where there as an attempt at a high concentration of executive powers):
Menand also noted that Hamilton warned of the temptations of Government is print money on his report on a central bank:
> The emitting of paper money by the authority of Government is wisely prohibited to the individual States, by the National Constitution. And the spirit of that prohibition ought not to be disregarded, by the Government of the United States. Though paper emissions, under a general authority, might have some advantages, not applicable, and be free from some disadvantages, which are applicable, to the like emissions by the States separately; yet they are of a nature so liable to abuse, and it may even be affirmed so certain of being abused, that the wisdom of the Government will be shewn in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient. In times of tranquillity, it might have no ill consequence, it might even perhaps be managed in a way to be productive of good; but in great and trying emergencies, there is almost a moral certainty of its becoming mischievous. The stamping of paper is an operation so much easier than the laying of taxes, that a government, in the practice of paper emissions, would rarely fail in any such emergency to indulge itself too far, in the employment of that resource, to avoid as much as possible one less auspicious to present popularity. If it should not even be carried so far as to be rendered an absolute bubble, it would at least be likely to be extended to a degree, which would occasion an inflated and artificial state of things incompatible with the regular and prosperous course of the political œconomy.
OK, but I don't care. A unitary executive is not the system that we have. So it's a takeover of power that, under the current system, does not belong to the president. I don't care that it's a unitary executive move or a dictator move or a mobster move; it's a move that illegitimately expands the president's power.
And, the more he wants it, the more I don't trust him with it. He wants it to make moves that are not good monetary policy, and as someone who lives in dollar-land, I don't want him to be able to ruin my life in that particular way.
Reminder of the structure:
* seven Board members (including Chair and Vice-Chair)
* twelve regional banks
* the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), made of:
* * seven Board members
* * president of New York bank
* * 4 of 11 of the rest of regional banks on a rotating basis
Source:
* https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/fed-structure
* also: https://www.clevelandfed.org/about-us/understanding-the-fede...
https://archive.today/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
https://archive.ph/KqJRj
I do not want a President with zero actual financial experience influencing Fed policy. The Fed is independent for a reason.
> The Fed is independent for a reason.
Just ask the folks in Turkey/Türkiye.
As Lev Menand mentioned in a recent Odd Lots episode (22m10), it was one of the reasons for the separation of powers (cites UK's Glorious Revolution where there as an attempt at a high concentration of executive powers):
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_7x6fEOYIU
Menand also noted that Hamilton warned of the temptations of Government is print money on his report on a central bank:
> The emitting of paper money by the authority of Government is wisely prohibited to the individual States, by the National Constitution. And the spirit of that prohibition ought not to be disregarded, by the Government of the United States. Though paper emissions, under a general authority, might have some advantages, not applicable, and be free from some disadvantages, which are applicable, to the like emissions by the States separately; yet they are of a nature so liable to abuse, and it may even be affirmed so certain of being abused, that the wisdom of the Government will be shewn in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient. In times of tranquillity, it might have no ill consequence, it might even perhaps be managed in a way to be productive of good; but in great and trying emergencies, there is almost a moral certainty of its becoming mischievous. The stamping of paper is an operation so much easier than the laying of taxes, that a government, in the practice of paper emissions, would rarely fail in any such emergency to indulge itself too far, in the employment of that resource, to avoid as much as possible one less auspicious to present popularity. If it should not even be carried so far as to be rendered an absolute bubble, it would at least be likely to be extended to a degree, which would occasion an inflated and artificial state of things incompatible with the regular and prosperous course of the political œconomy.
* https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-07-02-02...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_a_National_Bank
Of course.
But the actual experiment the unitary executive people want to run is having the SecTreas run both.
Trump is a monster and mobster but structurally this is a unitary executive play.
OK, but I don't care. A unitary executive is not the system that we have. So it's a takeover of power that, under the current system, does not belong to the president. I don't care that it's a unitary executive move or a dictator move or a mobster move; it's a move that illegitimately expands the president's power.
And, the more he wants it, the more I don't trust him with it. He wants it to make moves that are not good monetary policy, and as someone who lives in dollar-land, I don't want him to be able to ruin my life in that particular way.
> OK, but I don't care. A unitary executive is not the system that we have.
Tell that to Chief Justice Roberts et al. :/