This article critically examines the use of military law precedents in shaping the unitary executive theory by judicial conservatives. This article analyzes historical claims relied upon to justify expansive executive power and assesses their accuracy. This article highlights inconsistencies between purported constitutional requirements and the actual development of military and executive law. This article also explores the implications of these interpretations for the separation of powers and executive accountability. This article concludes that the pathway from military law to a broad unitary executive is neither historically grounded nor constitutionally mandated.
Joshua Kastenberg (Sat,) studied this question.