Kansas Kid said:
flown-the-coop said:
Wrong.
But it's okay to be wrong.
Also bear in mind that up to, during, and since the strength of the executive has been hotly debated, nowhere near original or settled science.
In fact, the whole reason for impeachment was that otherwise there would be no check on the power of POTUS.
Do the other branches enjoy such absolute power? No?
Okay then.
You are so right and those that wrote the Federalist papers are idiots.
Federalist 48 written by James Madison "aka the Father of the Constitution" says
"On the other side, the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its nature, and the judiciary being described by landmarks still less uncertain, projects of usurpation by either of these departments would immediately betray and defeat themselves."
https://sunwater.org/what-is-the-most-powerful-branch-of-government/
The fact that Congress can remove the members of the Executive and Judicial branch is another example of the ultimate power of Congress.
Can you tell me what laws the President can initiate or pass without approval of Congress? Congress on the other hand can pass laws without approval of the President is they override his veto.
How do laws work with no ability to enforce them?
Who has the guns? Who commands the people with the guns?
Who has the treasury?
Can POTUS create laws? No, but EOs serve many of the same.
I get you are a Congress is muh most special and strongest.
But Congress is a committee of nearly 600 where you need 400 to agree to do the most important things.
But if in your recollection of history is that there was no debate or discussion on separation of powers, whether or not to have impeachment, what powers rested with which… then okay. I dont think that's correct but you seem convicted on Article I is strongest because it came first.
What I know there was much much debate when the Constitution was being drafted. Federalist papers, drafted by just 2 of the participants and intended to get New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution - which they were barely effective in 1 are provided way too much credence and discount other voices but worse are often misrepresented and parsed and posted out of context to support certain "positions" often contrary to the broader concepts.
But since you like them as others do, Alexander Hamilton was adamant about a strong executive and concerned about governing by committee in Federalist 70.
Even our boy Madison himself in Federalist No. 51 argued for a strong executive with limited checks and worried it was not STRONG ENOUGH v the lege.
Again, you can have your take but acting like it's all buttoned up and not subject to interpretation and debate… well that's simply not accurate.
