That’s all relevant but pretty much just constitutional obiter dictum.
I doubt if a lot of the movers-and-shakers in DC have even read the Federalist Papers, especially the left side (SEE: certain more outspoken members of the BCC) that couldn’t be bothered to read the act they passed in 2010.
Proof: http://www.leadinglawyers.com/helpdesk/us_constitution.htm
“The Constitution merely established the three branches; it did not set forth how powers would be divided beyond basic descriptions of each branch’s duties. For example, the notion that the U.S. Supreme Court’s role would be to pass constitutional judgment on laws passed by Congress is nowhere found in the Constitution. The practice instead arose primarily through the efforts of John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court.”
For example, there was no discussion of the right of `judicial review’ of executive actions by the founders or mention of it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court claimed it in Marbury v. Madison and it was done. The decisions by the federal district courts setting aside President Trump’s EOs are illegitimate.
If war is the continuation of politics by other means, what we are seeing now? Either the last attempts of Uniparty to set aside the election or precursors to armed revolution. I received another box of ammo today.
“I received another box of ammo today.”
Only one?
:-) We’re gonna need more than that I fear
I see it (the intent of the design) as the President having the ability to act swiftly when needed with the legislature being more reflective and to address issues in more depth. Again, just based on (my reading of) the Federalist papers. The ‘tiebreaker’ is the power to impeach.