I’m responding to the OP’s criticism that proponents of the unitary view of the executive “believe this is the government defined by the Constitution, regardless of precedent.”

It seems odd to complain about giving insufficient respect to precedent, when that precedent itself overruled a prior precedent.

I agree precedents should be overruled when they are contrary to the text of the constitution, such as when Brown overruled Plessy. There are a lot of 20th century precedents that are wrong and are based more on convenience and a desire to appease FDR than on the text of the constitution.