I think you're misunderstanding at least a little bit here. The Constitution created separation of powers, but what it did not do is explicitly block a particular branch from either abdicating their duty or simply delegating their power back to the executive.

It's certainly an interesting situation that wasn't explicitly spelled out in the law. But as far as everything that's working, it's realistically all within the legal framework of the Constitution. There are procedures to remove an unfit President, sure; but there's no requirement baked into the Constitution that requires those parties to act upon those procedures.

In short, it's a whole lot of short-sightedness of the Constitution combined with willing participants across multiple branches of the government.

The problems unearthed and the damage being done will take decades to fix just our internal issues, and it's very likely we will never resolve our international problems.

I don't know what the future holds for the United States, but we are certainly going to be operating from a severe handicap for quite a while.

▲

tsimionescu 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The basic fact that needs to be contended with is that the Constitution, however brilliantly it may be crafted or repaired, is a piece of paper. It has no agency to enforce or do anything else. It's always people who have to decide to do things, maybe under inspiration from this paper or another. So whether the Constitution say "Congress must impeach a President who is doing this or that" vs "may impeach", that would have 0 practical impact.

Consider that most totalitarian states have constitutions that explicitly forbid torture, discrimination, and many other forms of government suppression of people. This does little in the face of a police state bent on suppressing the people.

▲

tracker1 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Worth mentioning, that goes the other way too... plenty of what should be executive power was delegated to congressional authority over the years as well. And it doesn't even begin to cover activist judicial practices.

The lines have definitely blurred a lot, especially since the early 1900's. And that's just between the branches, let alone the growth of govt in general.

▲

techblueberry 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"plenty of what should be executive power was delegated to congressional authority over the years as well"

Examples? The activist judges thing I can see, but I'm not so sure I'm concerned of a body with more singular authority (the president) delegating to a body with more democratic accountability and representation (congress), nor can I easily find any examples of it.

▲

tracker1 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The Federal Reserve itself would be the biggest example.

▲

bonsai_spool 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> The Federal Reserve itself would be the biggest example.

Can you expand? The Constitution gave the Executive powers that were then transferred to Congress and are now performed by the Federal Reserve?

▲

tracker1 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Paste from another reply: The fact that these "independent" bodies even exist outside executive control in the first place. The fact that a President signed the legislation that created these bodies is an example of passing executive power to the legislative.

	▲	techblueberry 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I won't say you're alone on this one, but the position that the federal reserve should not be independent is extremely controversial. So, if the president gave up his power to conduct monetary policy. Than good! But then that doesn't seem to correlate with Congress giving up their power so that they don't have to make unpopular votes and risk losing elections.

▲

nyeah 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you give an example of a case where the executive branch has delegated power to the legislative or judicial branches?

▲

tracker1 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Federal Reserve (Fed): While created by Congress to be independent, critics argue its regulatory powers and management of money are inherently executive functions that should be under Presidential control.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): As an independent regulatory commission, it oversees markets, yet some proponents of a unitary executive argue it should be subject to White House control.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A regulatory agency that, along with the Fed, has been subject to executive orders aiming to tighten oversight.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): An independent agency that issues regulations and recalls, often cited in discussions regarding the scope of executive authority.

▲

nyeah 4 hours ago | parent [-]

These are good examples of congressional power as defined in the Constitution. In each case the legislative branch created new agencies and delegated some power to the executive branch. But not the reverse.

Can you give any example of the opposite? A case where the executive has delegated power to the legislative or judicial branches?

▲

tracker1 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact that these "independent" bodies even exist outside executive control in the first place. The fact that a President signed the legislation that created these bodies is an example of passing executive power to the legislative.

	▲	nyeah 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Signing (or refusing to sign) legislation is a good example of the President exercising executive power. I'm not aware of any occasion when the President delegated that power to Congress (or to the Supreme Court). Can you cite something? Maybe we have a misunderstanding. I'm not asking a kind of broad speculative question like "hypothetically, what could a hardcore monarchist say to critique our constitutional system?" I was asking for a plain old real-world example of delegation of power from the executive branch to another branch. In the real history of the USA. Agreed on one point, though: I can't think of one either.

▲

keernan 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>>And it doesn't even begin to cover activist judicial practices.

The Constitution created SCOTUS as a political body.

The sole role of a Supreme Court Justice is to cast votes.

The constitution places zero restrictions on how a Justice decides which way to vote. The Justice is not bound by anything in deciding how to vote.

That includes bribery or other corruption. If bribery is proven, the Justice is subject to criminal prosecution. But conviction does not remove the Justice from office. And removal by impeachment does not undo the cases decided by the corrupt votes of the Justice.

Every vote of every Justice in US history was an "activist judicial practice" in the sense that each vote was made for personal reasons of the Justice that we will never know (opinions only reflect what a Justice chose to say, which in no way means it reflects the personal reasons for the Justice's vote).

Your comment is a political statement about a political body - although you seem to incorrectly believe you are making some type of legal statement.

▲

tracker1 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't say SCOTUS or Justices? Even then, even if they are making political decisions, there's still the illusion of something resembling reason behind those decisions... that's far from some of the activist decisions further down the line at the district level.

	▲	keernan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I should be more careful with my terminology. By saying the constitution made SCOTUS a political body, I meant that the design of the constitution is such that SCOTUS is free to interpret the Constitution (and laws) as it sees fit. The Constitution is designed such that it defines no rules and places no restrictions upon how Justices are to interpret the Constitution. The original design of the Constitution is that the Justices are to interpret the laws of the United States as they see fit. There is no such thing as an "activist" Supreme Court. The suggestion there must be an "Originalist interpretation" of the Constitution (e.g. it must be interpreted as intended by the Founding Fathers) is pure hogwash. If that were so, then by an "Originalist interpretation" the Constitution would already say so (and of course it doesn't). Nevertheless political conservative Justices actually made that part of their opinions that now impose the concept of "originalism" when interpretating the Constitution. A pretty neat magical trick by which the conservative Justices violate the philosophy of "originalism" to impose "originalism". And as for "further down the line at the district level", there is likewise no such thing as an "activist" court - in the sense that lower courts, unlike SCOTUS, are constrained by the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress. There cannot be "activist" district courts to the extent that if they overstep their bounds, SCOTUS will be called upon to address it. The phrase "activist court" is nothing more than a fictional invention of The Federalist Society. If there are actual politics being played in SCOTUS (this time I mean Republican vs Democrat), it is the Republicans through The Federalist Society and appointments to SCOTUS of Federalist Society Members. But now I am chasing down a rabbit hole that is best avoided.

▲

jmull 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Seems rather unlikely to me that people who ignore the constitution for the sake of political advantage would start following the constitution if it were worded differently.

▲

pseudalopex 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There are procedures to remove an unfit President, sure; but there's no requirement baked into the Constitution that requires those parties to act upon those procedures.

This would be enforced how?

	▲	layer8 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well, you can’t force people to follow the constitution in the first place, if too few agree with it.
	▲	keernan 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>>This would be enforced how Bingo. The flaw in the constitution. The Executive holds the only enforcement mechanism in government: the FBI, military and other police forces. Having majored in political science as an undergrad and then being a trial attorney for 40+ years, I would argue that my use of the word 'flaw' is probably misplaced. 'Flaw' implies it could (should) have been created differently. Alas, I am unaware of ever reading a workable way to 'fix' our constitutional 'flaw'.