> What requires a label is the theory that there’s an independent civil service insulated from the President and political appointees. The "executive power" is

> What requires a label is the theory that there’s an independent civil service insulated from the President and political appointees. The "executive power" is what's enumerated in Article II — most notably the All Other Officers Clause and the Take Care Clause. (It's been often said that it was no accident that the Framers put Article I first.) So: If both houses of Congress pass a bill saying that Agency X is insulated from the president and political oversight — and the president signs the bill into law — then that should be the complete and utter end of the discussion until Congress and the president agree to change the law. Those folks who've been bootstrapping a unitary-executive monarchy are engaging in ... let's just say, "creative lawyering" (spelled: making it up out of whole cloth). At least Marbury v. Madison has some policy grounds underlying it (the least dangerous branch and all that); the unitary-executive fantasy is devoid of such advantages. BTW, just because Trump hasn't yet done all the things a monarchist could do, doesn't mean he's not a monarchist; saying otherwise is atrociously illogical.