"...I don't believe in the unitary Executive. I don't quite know where Cheney's fourth branch of government fits into the unitary Executive, but whatever it is, I don't believe in it...

I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the Presidency. You know, I think, maybe with the exception of Nixon, in recent times, you know, most Presidents have struggled with this. You know, they've tried to get the right balance. I don't think President Bush has struggled with it at all. He's tried to assume as much power as possible. No argument really works, because he views his position as unassailable, and I think you have to begin to rein that in in the office by the person who holds it demonstrating that we've gotten through a lot of tough times in our country without, you know, the extent of Presidential power being claimed, as this President has...

Obviously, I'm not going to appoint judges who are lock-step in line with that unitary, Federalist society theory of government, which I think is very destructive to the, you know, to the whole body politic over time."
Oct. 10, 2007 Hillary Clinton

"This administration has illegally declared that it has supreme overriding authority. The Vice President and the President have accumulated and consolidated unprecedented power that has replaced the co-equal system of checks and balances mandated by the Constitution with a new Imperial Presidency. This imperialism has given the President far-reaching powers that our founding fathers would quickly recognize as tyranny.

The illegitimate authority of this newly constructed imperial Presidency – this Supreme Commander-in-Chief created by Cheney and Bush – has replaced the Rule-of-Law based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights."
Jan. 25, 2008 Mike Gravel

"No one of the branches of government can have supreme and exclusive decision-making authority, because no one branch can, by itself, safely be allowed to exercise the whole power of government in any circumstance. The legislature makes the laws, but is powerless to execute them. The judiciary can decide cases in light of the law, but has no authority either to execute decisions once taken, or control the content of the law. The executive has the exclusive power of direct action, but no lawful authority to act apart from the provisions of the laws and the constitution, or the specific judgments of the judiciary...

The branches are subject to the laws and the constitution, but they are not directly subject to either of the other branches. The legislature, for example, cannot simply dictate to the courts the outcome of any particular case. Neither, however can the courts dictate to the legislature the content of any law. The legislature can establish programs and mandates for executive action, but cannot simply dictate to the executive the particular action to be taken in pursuance of its legislation. Because each branch substantively controls the power vested in it, the other branches cannot simply dictate the use of that power."
Mar. 28, 2005 Alan Keyes

McEnulty, Frank (Ind) - None Found

"A Wall Street Journal article last week detailed a Department of Defense memo that discusses the legality of interrogation and torture methods in the wake of events at Abu Gharib. The document reportedly advises that the President has authority to order almost any action, including physical or psychological torture, despite federal laws to the contrary. The Pentagon lawyers who drafted the memo were not shy about blatantly asserting that the Commander-In-Chief can break the law when necessary, as evidenced by this quote from the memo: 'Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.'...

The greater issue presented by the Defense Department memo, however, is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. Defense Department lawyers essentially argue that a President's powers as Commander-In-Chief override federal laws prohibiting torture, and the Justice Department appears to agree. But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties. War has been used by Presidents to excuse the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to silence speech, to suspend habeas corpus, and even to control entire private industries...

A strong separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional liberties. No branch of government should be able to act unilaterally, no matter how cumbersome the legislative process may be. The beauty of the Constitution is that it encourages some degree of gridlock in government, making it harder for any branch to act capriciously or secretly. When we give any president- one man- too much power, we build a foundation for future tyranny."
May 8, 2008 Ron Paul