I actually do not disagree with your point, in principle.
But, the political reality is the principle requires the executive and Congress jointly to stand by it, and for the most part they have not done so when Congress has chosen not to challenge the executive on it.
For the benefit of adhering to a principle, it is required that doing so - adhering to the principle - has a continuous positive record, which it does not. That makes the matter rest on political decisions, which rests on political realities.
I take those realities to mean, and have meant in the past, Congress inaction has been the action giving political assent to the executive when the 60 day limit is breached. In that sense not just the executive but the Congress as well are making a political interpretation of the spirit and demands of Article 1 Section 8. That may not accord with a strict reading of Article 1 Section 8, but the nation and its institutions have survived with the political interpretations that may not meet that strict reading.
I am of a mind along with some of the founders that there are some matters of national interest and necessity that cannot be left to committees of legislatures and require executive command to be handled best of all. The one way the Congress can use the powers at its command to alter any course of the executive is the power of the purse. And as to any real or potential breaches of Article 1 Section 8 that is usually how Congress has checked the executive. I am fine with that, if and when Congress is willing. When Congress is not so willing I take it not as a Constitutional problem, just a political matter that Congress is free to alter course on at any time.
Good post.
👍