The Branches of Government are NOT "Co-Equal"

[NWRatCon]

This is a rhetorical canard too frequently uttered, and it is not "the plan" of the Constitution. The framers didn't say it, and didn't expect it.

If one studies the Constitution, and understands it, the incorrectness of the assertion is obvious. Yes, each branch (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) possess independent responsibilities and authorities, and they do have "checks" against each other, but the phrase used by the framers was "coordinate". They are supposed to work together.

Article I lays this out explicitly:

Section. 1.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Section 8, of course, expands on those powers. But, what is most important is understanding that Congress passes the law. Congress directs how the government operates. Congress collects and spends the revenue.

Both the other branches are reactive. They execute the laws (that Congress passes) and the judiciary interprets the laws (that Congress passes).

This is why Articles Ii and III are so short. The meat is elsewhere. It is also why some issues are simpler than they are made out to be and why numerous judicial "doctrines" are so out of step with the Constitution. For example, there is no such thing as "presidential immunity" in the Constitution. It's simply not there. Another constitutional stupidity foisted upon us by the Supreme Court is the "non-delegation doctrine". Both are excuses that are used by the Court to use their authority to interfere with the operations of other branches, but neither have existence in the Constitution itself. They made it up.

It's not that Congress doesn't mess up. Sometimes they do things they can't do. After all, Article IV provides,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The liberties of its denizens take precedence over even Congress' authority.

This is why Due Process is such an important issue right now, and why the Supreme Court's attitude about pushing Christian theology onto the nation is so jarring. It's extra-constitutional. As are its expansions of corporate personhood and invalidation of voting and civil rights.

Let's start the discussion!

 

[Rich2018]

I see the branches of government as similar to the respective "powers" of the elements of the game: rock, paper, scissors.

 

[NWRatCon]

I see the branches of government as similar to the respective "powers" of the elements of the game: rock, paper, scissors.

LOL. Not a bad analogy.

 

[Rich2018]

LOL. Not a bad analogy.

TY - they all have their powers over the other branches of government, but they also have vulnerabilities to those same other branches.

 

[Girlpower]

This is a rhetorical canard too frequently uttered, and it is not "the plan" of the Constitution. The framers didn't say it, and didn't expect it.

If one studies the Constitution, and understands it, the incorrectness of the assertion is obvious. Yes, each branch (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) possess independent responsibilities and authorities, and they do have "checks" against each other, but the phrase used by the framers was "coordinate". They are supposed to work together.

Article I lays this out explicitly:

Section. 1.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Section 8, of course, expands on those powers. But, what is most important is understanding that Congress passes the law. Congress directs how the government operates. Congress collects and spends the revenue.

Both the other branches are reactive. They execute the laws (that Congress passes) and the judiciary interprets the laws (that Congress passes).

This is why Articles Ii and III are so short. The meat is elsewhere. It is also why some issues are simpler than they are made out to be and why numerous judicial "doctrines" are so out of step with the Constitution. For example, there is no such thing as "presidential immunity" in the Constitution. It's simply not there. Another constitutional stupidity foisted upon us by the Supreme Court is the "non-delegation doctrine". Both are excuses that are used by the Court to use their authority to interfere with the operations of other branches, but neither have existence in the Constitution itself. They made it up.

It's not that Congress doesn't mess up. Sometimes they do things they can't do. After all, Article IV provides,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The liberties of its denizens take precedence over even Congress' authority.

This is why Due Process is such an important issue right now, and why the Supreme Court's attitude about pushing Christian theology onto the nation is so jarring. It's extra-constitutional. As are its expansions of corporate personhood and invalidation of voting and civil rights.

Let's start the discussion!

The founders clearly expected the legislative branch to hold the most power, the judiciary the least.

Marbury v. Madison threw that out the window and put the judiciary at the top but over the decades the executive has wrestled a lot of power away from the legislative putting them at the top currently.

 

[Rich2018]

The founders clearly expected the legislative branch to hold the most power, the judiciary the least.

Marbury v. Madison threw that out the window and put the judiciary at the top but over the decades the executive has wrestled a lot of power away from the legislative putting them at the top currently.

And technically Congress does have easily the most power, but that would be if it could speak with a single voice. But it cannot.

 

[Girlpower]

And technically Congress does have easily the most power, but that would be if it could speak with a single voice. But it cannot.

And let me guess that that one voice is the one that agrees with you.

 

[Rich2018]

And let me guess that that one voice is the one that agrees with you.

No, it wouldn't matter what voice it was

If Congress could speak with one voice, then it would be easily more powerful than the other two branches of government.

 

[NWRatCon]

No, it wouldn't matter what voice it was

If Congress could speak with one voice, then it would be easily more powerful than the other two branches of government.

Well, if it could speak at all.

 

[Rich2018]

Well, if it could speak at all.

Well the House does have difficulties sometimes in electing a speaker and rarely does he/she have overwhelming support

Much less both the House and Senate speaking in unison.

 

[Safiel]

This is a rhetorical canard too frequently uttered, and it is not "the plan" of the Constitution. The framers didn't say it, and didn't expect it.

If one studies the Constitution, and understands it, the incorrectness of the assertion is obvious. Yes, each branch (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) possess independent responsibilities and authorities, and they do have "checks" against each other, but the phrase used by the framers was "coordinate". They are supposed to work together.

Article I lays this out explicitly:

Section. 1.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Section 8, of course, expands on those powers. But, what is most important is understanding that Congress passes the law. Congress directs how the government operates. Congress collects and spends the revenue.

Both the other branches are reactive. They execute the laws (that Congress passes) and the judiciary interprets the laws (that Congress passes).

This is why Articles Ii and III are so short. The meat is elsewhere. It is also why some issues are simpler than they are made out to be and why numerous judicial "doctrines" are so out of step with the Constitution. For example, there is no such thing as "presidential immunity" in the Constitution. It's simply not there. Another constitutional stupidity foisted upon us by the Supreme Court is the "non-delegation doctrine". Both are excuses that are used by the Court to use their authority to interfere with the operations of other branches, but neither have existence in the Constitution itself. They made it up.

It's not that Congress doesn't mess up. Sometimes they do things they can't do. After all, Article IV provides,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The liberties of its denizens take precedence over even Congress' authority.

This is why Due Process is such an important issue right now, and why the Supreme Court's attitude about pushing Christian theology onto the nation is so jarring. It's extra-constitutional. As are its expansions of corporate personhood and invalidation of voting and civil rights.

Let's start the discussion!

I do believe the Congress is the first and foremost branch and really should be the lead branch.

The Executive Branch was intended to be intended to be primarily administrative in nature, carrying out the policy enacted by Congress, with limited discretion. Its only real power points were foreign policy and war.

While I do believe the Judiciary does have the role of interpreting the Constitution and the law, too often it has royally ****ed up, in both directions I might add.

Presidential immunity is bull shit from the right.

The doctrine of the evolving standards of decency is bull shit from the left.

Unfortunately, "fixing" Congress to make it functional would require major constitutional change that is not likely to happen.

In most nations, bicameral legislative Houses are NOT equal in power. Typically, the upper house is substantially weaker and more limited than the lower house.

Legislative, both the Senate and House of Representatives are equal in power, opening the door to deadlock, even if both Houses are under control of the same party. The existence of the filibuster exacerbates this.

The President has become far too powerful, much of it due to the impotence of Congress and much of it with the indulgence of the courts.

Reforms should center around restoring the effectiveness of Congress as a legislative body, neutering the Presidency and trying to end the ability of ideologues to "capture" the courts.

 

[Rich2018]

I do believe the Congress is the first and foremost branch and really should be the lead branch.

The Executive Branch was intended to be intended to be primarily administrative in nature, carrying out the policy enacted by Congress, with limited discretion. Its only real power points were foreign policy and war.

While I do believe the Judiciary does have the role of interpreting the Constitution and the law, too often it has royally ****ed up, in both directions I might add.

Presidential immunity is bull shit from the right.

The doctrine of the evolving standards of decency is bull shit from the left.

Unfortunately, "fixing" Congress to make it functional would require major constitutional change that is not likely to happen.

In most nations, bicameral legislative Houses are NOT equal in power. Typically, the upper house is substantially weaker and more limited than the lower house.

Legislative, both the Senate and House of Representatives are equal in power, opening the door to deadlock, even if both Houses are under control of the same party. The existence of the filibuster exacerbates this.

The President has become far too powerful, much of it due to the impotence of Congress and much of it with the indulgence of the courts.

Reforms should center around restoring the effectiveness of Congress as a legislative body, neutering the Presidency and trying to end the ability of ideologues to "capture" the courts.

No, I see the president as like a ship's captain - he decides where to go
Congress is like the ship's crew, they get it done
The Supreme Court ensures that the "crew" don't do anything wrong in getting there.

 

[multivita-man]

The founders clearly expected the legislative branch to hold the most power, the judiciary the least.

It's inaccurate to frame it that way. The Framers felt that the different branches should serve their function. Nothing more or less than that. They likely assumed the biggest competition would be between the executive and the legislative branches, because the legislative would try to pass laws that the president might not want to sign, or fail to pass laws he wanted signed.

Marbury v. Madison threw that out the window and put the judiciary at the top but over the decades the executive has wrestled a lot of power away from the legislative putting them at the top currently.

It's the Court that declares laws valid (or not) under the Constitution. In practice, judicial review wasn't necessarily a new concept even then. Judicial review existed in the English common law but it was a more subtle matter of discretion. For example, a court finds someone has been brought before them on charges based on a law or an arrest they find unconstitutional, they decide to dismiss the case - that sort of thing.

Marbury was controversial because the Marshall court determined that Congress, through legislation, had expanded original jurisdiction beyond that which the Constitution permitted, and that the Act itself is invalid. Marshall's court could have simply pointed out that they are not obliged to respect Congress' Act because it's inconsistent with what the Constitution requires, but Marshall went further and asserted in writing and in no uncertain terms the Court's power to invalidate Acts of Congress, which, at the time, seemed like a breach but has been generally respected as precedent by pretty much every president and congress since...until this one.

 

[NWRatCon]

No, I see the president as like a ship's captain - he decides where to go
Congress is like the ship's crew, they get it done
The Supreme Court ensures that the "crew" don't do anything wrong in getting there.

No, no, no, no. Completely incorrect. Exactly backwards. Congress, if you want an analogy, rather than just the words of the Constitution itself - which is pretty explicit - are the owners, and the President is their manager. He's to do what they say, and offer advise. He doesn't get to "Do his own thing". They set the rules, he follows them.

 

[multivita-man]

No, I see the president as like a ship's captain - he decides where to go
Congress is like the ship's crew, they get it done
The Supreme Court ensures that the "crew" don't do anything wrong in getting there.

As @NWRatCon said, this is backward. The Congress legislates -- they write the laws. The President is actually the first line of defense in supporting the Constitution - says so in his oath. So if he knows that Congress is passing legislation that isn't consistent with the Constitution, he has veto power. Of course, he can veto legislation on other grounds, like laws simply not being good for the country. But Congress is the most direct representation of popular will, even more so than the president, because Congressional elections are held every two years, and voters have a direct say in who represents them.

 

[Rich2018]

No, no, no, no. Completely incorrect. Exactly backwards. Congress, if you want an analogy, rather than just the words of the Constitution itself - which is pretty explicit - are the owners, and the President is their manager. He's to do what they say, and offer advise. He doesn't get to "Do his own thing". They set the rules, he follows them.

But the Executive branch decides on direction, not Congress.

That is the same with the executive of any organization. The president is the leader, the head of the government.

 

[Bullseye]

This is a rhetorical canard too frequently uttered, and it is not "the plan" of the Constitution. The framers didn't say it, and didn't expect it.

If one studies the Constitution, and understands it, the incorrectness of the assertion is obvious. Yes, each branch (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) possess independent responsibilities and authorities, and they do have "checks" against each other, but the phrase used by the framers was "coordinate". They are supposed to work together.

Article I lays this out explicitly:

Section. 1.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Section 8, of course, expands on those powers. But, what is most important is understanding that Congress passes the law. Congress directs how the government operates. Congress collects and spends the revenue.

Both the other branches are reactive. They execute the laws (that Congress passes) and the judiciary interprets the laws (that Congress passes).

This is why Articles Ii and III are so short. The meat is elsewhere. It is also why some issues are simpler than they are made out to be and why numerous judicial "doctrines" are so out of step with the Constitution. For example, there is no such thing as "presidential immunity" in the Constitution. It's simply not there. Another constitutional stupidity foisted upon us by the Supreme Court is the "non-delegation doctrine". Both are excuses that are used by the Court to use their authority to interfere with the operations of other branches, but neither have existence in the Constitution itself. They made it up.

It's not that Congress doesn't mess up. Sometimes they do things they can't do. After all, Article IV provides,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The liberties of its denizens take precedence over even Congress' authority.

This is why Due Process is such an important issue right now, and why the Supreme Court's attitude about pushing Christian theology onto the nation is so jarring. It's extra-constitutional. As are its expansions of corporate personhood and invalidation of voting and civil rights.

Let's start the discussion!

I think you're missing the point. You correctly layout the duties and functions of each branch but fail to recognize how each's functions depend on the participation of the others to succeed. For instance Congress can pass a gazillion laws but if the executive refuses to enforcement or the Judicial fails to confirm their legitimacy - we've got squat. The questionable interference of District Courts in national law interpretation demonstrably illustrates a high level of judiciary power and the presidential veto show the branches sway. Even though the executive is the prime player in international deplomacy the legislative as "approve and consent" power over his work and a President's use of the military has caveats on use of military.

 

[NWRatCon]

I think you're missing the point. You correctly layout the duties and functions of each branch but fail to recognize how each's functions depend on the participation of the others to succeed. For instance Congress can pass a gazillion laws but if the executive refuses to enforcement or the Judicial fails to confirm their legitimacy - we've got squat. The questionable interference of District Courts in national law interpretation demonstrably illustrates a high level of judiciary power and the presidential veto show the branches sway. Even though the executive is the prime player in international deplomacy the legislative as "approve and consent" power over his work and a President's use of the military has caveats on use of military.

Nah, YOU missed the point. (Moreover, you mischaracterized the authorities of the branches.) Yes, each branch has "checks" on the other, but go back and read the OP, and the Constitution. Those checks are not "co-equal", they are coordinate. Indeed, you agree with me that "They are supposed to work together." That's how they succeed.

As I noted, only one branch has the authority to create legislation. Only one. Both this outlaw regime and this Supreme Court have overstepped their bounds as described in the Constitution, and failed to do their constitutional duty.

 

[Bullseye]

Nah, YOU missed the point. (Moreover, you mischaracterized the authorities of the branches.) Yes, each branch has "checks" on the other, but go back and read the OP, and the Constitution. Those checks are not "co-equal", they are coordinate. Indeed, you agree with me that "They are supposed to work together." That's how they succeed.

As I noted, only one branch has the authority to create legislation. Only one. Both this outlaw regime and this Supreme Court have overstepped their bounds as described in the Constitution, and failed to do their constitutional duty.

suit yourself.

 

[bomberfox]

I do believe the Congress is the first and foremost branch and really should be the lead branch.

The Executive Branch was intended to be intended to be primarily administrative in nature, carrying out the policy enacted by Congress, with limited discretion. Its only real power points were foreign policy and war.

While I do believe the Judiciary does have the role of interpreting the Constitution and the law, too often it has royally ****ed up, in both directions I might add.

Presidential immunity is bull shit from the right.

The doctrine of the evolving standards of decency is bull shit from the left.

Unfortunately, "fixing" Congress to make it functional would require major constitutional change that is not likely to happen.

In most nations, bicameral legislative Houses are NOT equal in power. Typically, the upper house is substantially weaker and more limited than the lower house.

Legislative, both the Senate and House of Representatives are equal in power, opening the door to deadlock, even if both Houses are under control of the same party. The existence of the filibuster exacerbates this.

The President has become far too powerful, much of it due to the impotence of Congress and much of it with the indulgence of the courts.

Reforms should center around restoring the effectiveness of Congress as a legislative body, neutering the Presidency and trying to end the ability of ideologues to "capture" the courts.

We agree congress should be the main branch of the US government. They are the voice of the people.

 

[bomberfox]

As @NWRatCon said, this is backward. The Congress legislates -- they write the laws. The President is actually the first line of defense in supporting the Constitution - says so in his oath. So if he knows that Congress is passing legislation that isn't consistent with the Constitution, he has veto power. Of course, he can veto legislation on other grounds, like laws simply not being good for the country. But Congress is the most direct representation of popular will, even more so than the president, because Congressional elections are held every two years, and voters have a direct say in who represents them.

In practice the presidency is the biggest threat to our liberties. I always knew it was going to be the first branch to be a huge threat to the constitution.

 

[NWRatCon]

suit yourself.

Oh, I'd love it if you presented something of substance to support your assertions, as I did. That would "suit me" fine. Please. Cite something in the Constitution we can discuss. I'm dead serious. There are things in there we agree on, like some partisan judges creating problems. Of course which judges are "partisan" and which are following the Constitution will result in a vigorous debate. This is, after all, Debate Politics.

 

[NWRatCon]

In practice the presidency is the biggest threat to our liberties. I always knew it was going to be the first branch to be a huge threat to the constitution.

As the framers feared.

 

[NWRatCon]

I do believe the Congress is the first and foremost branch and really should be the lead branch.

The Executive Branch was intended to be intended to be primarily administrative in nature, carrying out the policy enacted by Congress, with limited discretion. Its only real power points were foreign policy and war.

And even those are far more limited than expressed by the Supreme Court.

I lay a lot of the distortion of the Constitution at the feet of partisans on the Court (especially of late).

While I do believe the Judiciary does have the role of interpreting the Constitution and the law, too often it has royally ****ed up, in both directions I might add.

Presidential immunity is bull shit from the right.

I agree. There are a number of doctrines created by the Supreme Court that are "extra-Constitutional", like presidential immunity and separation of powers.
"'What?!" Someone says... The concept is certainly in the Constitution, but not as the doctrine has been applied by the Court. It is, in fact, an arrogation of authority by the Court that is unconstitutional.

The doctrine of the evolving standards of decency is bull shit from the left.

Well disagree on this misinterpretation.

Unfortunately, "fixing" Congress to make it functional would require major constitutional change that is not likely to happen.

Very true. The defect in the original document has been exploited in unconscionable ways by political parties.

In most nations, bicameral legislative Houses are NOT equal in power. Typically, the upper house is substantially weaker and more limited than the lower house.

Legislative, both the Senate and House of Representatives are equal in power, opening the door to deadlock, even if both Houses are under control of the same party. The existence of the filibuster exacerbates this.

The President has become far too powerful, much of it due to the impotence of Congress and much of it with the indulgence of the courts.

Agreed.

Reforms should center around restoring the effectiveness of Congress as a legislative body, neutering the Presidency and trying to end the ability of ideologues to "capture" the courts.

Amen.

 

[NWRatCon]

Trying to keep focused on the theme of this thread, I would like to expand a bit on the OP.
Article II of the Constitution identifies the powers of the Presidency. They are often misinterpreted.

Section. 1.​

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected...

Section. 2.​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.​

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
_____
That is it. Compleat. Fin.

Note: Nothing in there about firing officers once appointed. No immunity. No extraordinary powers. No ability to declare emergencies, except as provided by law. No authority to dictate to Congress or anyone else. No authority to misappropriate funds or use them other than as directed by Congress. But, of course, rather, a requirement that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".