That’s a rather naive view of unitary executive theory if you look at how it’s actually been used. The people pushing it say they are not bound by the Constitution, because part of the theory, which was advanced during a Trump’s first impeachment trial, is that if the President does it, it can’t be a crime. He was acquitted under that theory. Moreover, he argued the proper venue for accountability is the courts. But in court, he argued the proper venue for accountability was impeachment. SCOTUS essentially agreed with that.

So when you say “bound by the Constitution” what you really mean is bound by being able to sway 10 senators from his own party. So… not exactly bound is it, considering he’s already shown he’s willing to arrest his political opponents (and under unitary executive theory it’s within his power to do so)

▲

mangodrunk an hour ago | parent [-]

Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected? This actually seems like the more democratic approach. Though I think to handle too much sudden change, some limits should be imposed, but not sure what that limit should be.

They of course are bounded by the constitution and haven't claimed otherwise. The court decides if something is unconstitutional and I do think impeachment is certainly a venue for accountability as well

	▲	boothby 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected? Yes. In a representative democracy, a plurality of views are represented in government, enabling checks and balances to prevent arbitrary and corrupt governance. When the president is allowed to eviscerate independent bodies and replace their leadership and fill their ranks with loyalists, you get further and further from an expression of the will of the people and closer and closer to totalitarianism. Russia is a nominal democracy. Putin is the elected leader. He enjoys unchecked power, of which Trump is nakedly envious. Do you think that Russia’s approach is "more democratic" than that of the US because of the strength of its executive?