The unitary executive theory and traditional separation-of-powers theory are related but meaningfully different ways of understanding how the Constitution distributes power—especially within the executive branch.

Here’s a side-by-side explanation that highlights the key differences.

---

1. Core focus

Traditional separation of powers

• Emphasizes dividing power among three branches (legislative, executive, judicial).
• Concerned mainly with preventing tyranny by ensuring no branch dominates the others.
• Accepts some blending and overlap of functions (checks and balances).

Unitary executive theory

• Focuses on internal control of the executive branch.
• Argues that executive power must be centralized in the president.
• Less concerned with internal dispersion of executive authority; more with presidential accountability.

---

2. Control within the executive branch

Traditional view

• Congress may create independent agencies and shield their leaders from presidential removal.
• Executive power can be shared or constrained internally to promote expertise and neutrality.
• Agencies can operate with limited presidential oversight.

Unitary executive

• All executive officials must be directly accountable to the president.
• Limits on presidential removal power are unconstitutional or suspect.
• “Independent” agencies exercising executive power are problematic.

---

3. Role of Congress

Traditional view

• Congress has broad authority to:
  • Structure executive agencies
  • Impose procedural limits on enforcement
  • Create checks on executive discretion

Unitary executive

• Congress cannot interfere with how the president supervises or removes executive officers.
• Legislative attempts to insulate agencies from presidential control violate Article II.

---

4. Accountability theory

Traditional view

• Accountability comes from diffusion of power and institutional rivalry.
• Independence within the executive promotes rule-of-law values.

Unitary executive

• Accountability comes from clear responsibility: one president, elected nationally.
• If power is dispersed, blame is blurred and democracy suffers.

---

5. Constitutional interpretation style

Traditional view

• Relies on:
  • Constitutional structure
  • Historical practice
  • Functional considerations (what works best)

Unitary executive

• Relies heavily on:
  • Text of Article II
  • Originalist readings
  • Formal separation of powers

---

6. Supreme Court posture

Traditional approach

• Long reflected in cases upholding independent agencies (e.g., limits on removal).

Unitary executive

• Increasingly influential in recent cases strengthening presidential removal authority.
• Still not fully adopted by the Court.

---

Bottom line

• Separation of powers is about dividing power across branches to prevent abuse.
• Unitary executive theory is about concentrating executive power in the president for control and accountability.

They overlap, but the unitary executive theory represents a more centralized and formalist vision of executive power than the traditional separation-of-powers model.

If you’d like, I can give a simple analogy, walk through specific Supreme Court cases, or explain how this difference affects modern regulatory agencies.