The Bush Administration was able to appoint two Supreme Court justices. Bush wanted diversity in the choices, such as a woman or a minority. Both his picks, Gonzalas and Miers, were shot down by both conservatives and public opinion.

Cheney, however, wanted justices that supported his view of the unitary executive in order to back up his actions in areas such as emergency, terror, torture, executive privilege, etc. Cheney led the panel that selected the final five candidates. Gellman writes:

Collectively, the group [of candidates] saw executive power in expansive terms and congressional authority more narrowly.

The media concerns and political showmanship over abortion was a furphy as it turned out - more suited to scandal than judicaturial scholarship. With Roberts and Alito the Supreme Court of the USA became more executive friendly.

The unitary executive is a cherry picked view of the Federalist Papers, namely Hamilton's No.70 where he argues that a vigorous executive is essential to good government. Hamilton writes:

That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.

This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part, to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him.

Hamilton then goes on to argue against the Roman Consul system which was a two President style system. In reality though the Consuls were warrior kings and were off fighting the wars of Rome pretty much constantly, enough that new magistracies had to be made in Rome with imperium to deal with the domestic issues of the city.

Cheney's view on executive authority is very similar to Thomas Jeffersons which is known as the Doctrine of Higher Obligation. I have often wondered if they would not have got more popular traction by claiming they were operating under Jefferson's view of executive power than the 'unitary president'.

The presidential doctrine of executive power we know today is more Madison's and stems from his time as President when he pretty much over-rode Jefferson's machinations through practice and convention.

Hamilton's argument doesn't bear for Cheney, especially not when it is backed by the whacko and extreme writings of John Yoo as legal precedent, and leaves the citizen wondering if the last eight years wasn't just an excuse for maximal power.

The ultimate test is if the 'unitary executive' brought good government. It did not. This is already recognized as one of the worst Administrations in the history of the United States. For that reason alone the doctrine of the unitary executive is a failed one.

The Roman system, rather than having a Montesquieu system of separation of powers, had the organisational structure of provincia - which was separation of magistrates. Provincia seems to mean an area that requires administration, which presumably demands executive attention, but it appears it could be an area that would be allotted a magistrate to be conquered and administered. Which is not surprising as the political positions of consul were martial executives and heavily involved in military matters including conquest. Andrew Lintott makes the comment that this led to the provincial magistrates becoming more powerful than those in Rome. (more)

Rome did not have a written constitution as the United States or Australia do. It did not even appear to have a Westminster style one such as Britain's or Tasmania's which exists across multiple non-contiguous acts. It seems to be purely a mix of convention and tradition. Which was probably why it was easy for Sulla, Caesar and Augustus to subvert it. (more)