perhaps the "experts" have "changed their minds" but my grad school profs at Auburn & at Tulane said the 3 branches were INTENDED to be "coequal". when both congress & the executive branch "sat still for" Marbury v. Madison, the "collegiality of the three branches" was FINISHED!!
free dixie,sw
I’ve read the Constitution. Perhaps you and your professors have not.
Congress, as the most representative branch, was intended to be supreme under the Constitution, although exercising that power was difficult due to the requirement for super-majorities. However, if Congress were ever unified against either of the other branches, there would be no contest.
The Congress can defund any executive branch initiative and remove from office any officer of the US whenever it chooses.
In many countries, the executive can call early elections, prorogue the legislature or has other means of exercising power in opposition to it.
None of that here. Under the Constitution, the President’s power versus Congress is limited to a relatively easily overridden suspensive veto power.
The power of Congress over the judicial branch is even more direct, as they can both remove from office and limit jurisdiction.
That this is not the way our system has worked in practice does not change the obvious fact that it was intended to work that way.
Since my interpretation is so incorrect, please explain to me the powers that the executive and judicial branches can exercise against the legislative branch in a direct confrontation.