Don't even get me started on Treaties. Our founders were SOB independent men. They argued and compromised and did one heck of a job. Maybe a refocus is in order?
I'll repost a few links to one of my past screeds on this subject.
No founding father envisioned or argued the President had equal power to the CongressNo founding father envisioned the Senate to be what it is today. They envisioned the Senate to be the arm of the states in the federal government. The President was the executive of the federation of states, not the ruler of the people. It was the role of the governors of the several states to lead the people of their states.
It was the role of the federal Executive to manage the relationships between the states, to be the voice of the nation in foreign relations with other countries, and to be the commander-in-chief of the military during armed conflicts.
The President's constituents were the governors, not the people. The states were the sovereign governments closest to the people. That's why the Senate was designed to be appointed by their respective state legislatures: 1) to confirm the President's nominations for executive branch offices and judicial picks, and 2) to ratify treaties that the President negotiated with foreign governments.
Why do you think the Constitution has the "compacts clause" in Article I Section 10? The Senate was supposed to act like a "United Nations" general assembly where the ambassadors from the several states would meet to discuss common interests at the suggestion of their state legislatures. Groups of states would join together in a joint venture that benefited their combined states -- this is why the Constitution has a "compacts" clause, so that the entire Congress can approve a joint venture between several states negotiated in the Senate on the legislatures' behalf. Then the President, as the Executive of the states, would sign the compact into law.
It was the several states, through the Senate, that were supposed to "lead" the President, not the other way around. This is why Article IV Section 4 says "and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)..." The states were expected to communicate to their Senators to convey to the President what the states were going to do. They were not asking the President for permission, they were informing the President of their intended actions.
So the founding fathers expected the states to be first in power working with the Executive and their Senators; with the Executive as Speaker of the nation to foreign governments and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces to be second in power; with the Congress making compacts between the states, authorizing and appropriating the monies for these compacts, and ratifying treaties with foreign nations third; and the Supreme Court last.
This is a post of mine citing James Madison in Federalist #43 discussing the role of states in federalism and republicanism. Again, the states were expected to band together to police themselves against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence, and not depend on the federal government to get involved on their behalf. A Senate of the states would be crucial in making this happen at the federal level.
-PJ