The common idea of three coequal branches of U.S. government is a modern political interpretation, but it wasn’t the original intent of the Founders. The Constitution places Congress at the top, with the Supreme Court acting as a constitutional check, and the President as a law enforcer—not a lawmaker or ruler. The Founders were deeply wary of executive power, and their writings and debates show that they intended Congress to be the dominant branch. 1. Congress: The Primary Branch Why It’s Supreme: It comes first in the Constitution (Article I) → The Framers structured the Constitution in order of importance. Congress was given the longest and most detailed section. It has impeachment power → Congress can remove both presidents and justices, while neither can remove Congress. It controls the purse → Congress funds all government operations, including the military and executive agencies. The president cannot spend money without congressional approval. It can override both the Supreme Court and the President → By amending the Constitution, it can nullify Supreme Court rulings, and it can override a presidential veto. What the Founders Said: James Madison (Federalist No. 51): “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 78): “The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated.” George Mason: Warned that if Congress was weak, the president could turn into an “elective monarchy.” Examples in Action: Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868), Bill Clinton (1998), and Donald Trump (2019, 2021): Congress exercised its highest check by impeaching presidents (even if they weren’t removed by the Senate). Congress overrides Truman’s veto (1952): Congress blocked President Truman from seizing steel mills during the Korean War, reinforcing its constitutional authority over war-related industries. 2. The Supreme Court: The Constitutional Referee Why It’s Above the President But Below Congress: It can rule presidential actions unconstitutional → The Court has limited executive power, striking down overreaches. But Congress controls its structure → Congress decides the number of justices and can even limit the Court’s jurisdiction. Congress can override SC decisions → By amending the Constitution, Congress can overrule any Supreme Court ruling. What the Founders Said: Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 78): The judiciary would be the “least dangerous” branch because it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse.” James Madison: Believed judicial review was necessary but assumed Congress would be the ultimate safeguard against tyranny. Examples in Action: Marbury v. Madison (1803): The Court established judicial review, giving itself the power to strike down laws, though this wasn’t explicitly in the Constitution. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): The SC ruled segregation unconstitutional, but Congress had to pass the Civil Rights Act (1964) to fully enforce it. Congress changes the Court’s size (1866): After the Civil War, Congress reduced the number of justices to 7, showing its authority over the Court. 3. The President: The Law Enforcer, Not a Ruler Why It’s the Weakest (Constitutionally): The president enforces, not makes laws → The role of the executive is to carry out laws that Congress passes, not to create them. Congress can remove a president → Through impeachment, Congress can remove the executive, but the president cannot remove Congress. Presidents need congressional approval for war and spending → Despite modern "imperial" presidencies, the Constitution gives war powers to Congress. What the Founders Said: James Madison (Federalist No. 48): “The executive department is not the stronger branch of government.” George Washington: Warned against presidents becoming too powerful and set the precedent of voluntarily stepping down after two terms. Thomas Jefferson: Feared that without Congress as a check, the presidency could turn into a monarchy. Examples in Action: FDR’s attempted court-packing (1937): When the SC resisted his policies, Franklin Roosevelt tried to expand the Court. Congress refused, reinforcing its supremacy. Congress overrides Nixon’s veto (1973): Congress passed the War Powers Act to limit the president’s ability to send troops abroad without approval. Impeachment of Trump & Clinton: Congress reaffirmed its ability to check the executive by publicly holding presidents accountable, even when removal failed. Conclusion: The Framers Wanted Congress to Be Supreme The modern presidency has expanded its power, but this is not what the Framers intended. The Constitution places Congress at the top, the Supreme Court as an interpreter of laws, and the President as an enforcer of laws. Hierarchy as Originally Designed: 1. Congress (Most Powerful) → Writes laws, controls funding, can remove presidents and justices. 2. Supreme Court → Can check laws and presidential actions but is controlled by Congress. 3. President (Least Powerful Constitutionally) → Enforces laws but can be overridden by both the SC and Congress. While the Imperial Presidency has grown, the Founders designed the U.S. government to be congressional-led, fearing the rise of an authoritarian executive.
Congress can remove a President,a President cant remove Congress. Congress can pass laws without the President and override Presidents vetos. Unfortunately the US Congress is very anti democratic do to gerrymandering in the House and small sates like Wyoming having as much representation in The Senate as CA.And of course the US Congress is legally for sale to the highest bidders.Wish the founders could have prevented those issues.
The rise of the "Imperial presidency" in the 20th century needs to be tackled once the fascism is put down. Congress needs to reassert its supremacy, especially in war powers, emergency powers, and executive overreach. Jamie Raskin was on a show recently where he even mocked whoever coined "coequal" in modern times, as it wasn't a very educated person with the pointless redundancy.
The notion that Congress was designed to be supreme over the other branches misreads both the structure and intent of the Constitution. 1. Misinterpreting Constitutional Order and Structure Claim: “Congress comes first in the Constitution (Article I) → The Framers structured the Constitution in order of importance.” Rebuttal: Order ≠ Hierarchy: The Constitution’s arrangement reflects a practical organization rather than a ranking of power. The order of articles was driven by drafting convenience and topic grouping. For instance, the Bill of Rights appears at the beginning of later amendments, yet it is not “above” other constitutional principles. Design of Checks and Balances: The Framers intentionally built a system where each branch has separate functions. The idea was not to crown Congress as the “head” but to ensure no single branch could dominate. The separation of powers was meant to have each branch check the others, not to install a clear top-down hierarchy. 2. Overstating Congress’s Powers Claim: “Congress is supreme because it can impeach, controls the purse, and overrides both the Supreme Court and the President.” Rebuttal: Impeachment as a Check, Not a Crown Jewel: While impeachment is a power reserved for Congress, its use is both politically fraught and requires cooperation between the House and Senate. It is a tool for accountability rather than evidence of absolute dominance. Control of the Purse: Although Congress holds the power of the purse, this authority is balanced by the President’s role in managing national emergencies and executing policy. Funding debates and budgetary fights are part of the political process, not an indication that Congress was meant to be the unquestioned leader. Overriding Vetoes and Amending the Constitution: The ability to override a veto or amend the Constitution involves supermajorities and is intentionally difficult to use. These mechanisms are safeguards against tyranny by any branch rather than signs that Congress was designed to dictate the entire system. 3. Mischaracterizing the Role of the Supreme Court Claim: “The Supreme Court is a constitutional referee, positioned above the President but below Congress, because Congress controls its structure and can even change its decisions by amending the Constitution.” Rebuttal: Judicial Independence: The Court’s lifetime appointments and institutional independence ensure that it is not merely a subordinate tool of Congress. Its role in judicial review, though developed post-ratification, has been a cornerstone of American constitutional law since Marbury v. Madison. The Framers intended the judiciary to act as an impartial interpreter of the law, not as an extension of legislative will. Structural Control vs. Functional Autonomy: While Congress has the theoretical power to regulate the judiciary’s structure (e.g., changing the number of justices), in practice, the Court’s decisions have a lasting impact and are not routinely overridden by congressional action. This balance prevents any one branch from dominating the legal landscape. 4. Undermining the Presidency’s Authority Claim: “The President is merely a law enforcer, not a lawmaker or ruler, with limited powers that can be checked by Congress.” Rebuttal: Constitutional Powers Beyond Enforcement: The President holds significant constitutional responsibilities beyond mere enforcement—serving as Commander in Chief, managing foreign relations, and wielding the power to issue executive orders in times of crisis. These powers, though balanced by congressional oversight, enable the executive to act decisively when necessary. Historical Evolution and Necessity of a Strong Executive: Many of the debates among the Founders centered on avoiding the pitfalls of a monarchy, yet they recognized that a weak executive could lead to instability. The Framers intentionally provided the president with powers that, if unchecked, could indeed be significant—hence the extensive checks by both Congress and the judiciary. Selective Use of Historical Quotes: The quoted warnings by Jefferson and others are often taken out of context. While the Founders were cautious of unchecked executive power, they simultaneously provided for a robust presidency to ensure effective governance. The political system was designed so that no branch could simply overpower the others. 5. The Bigger Picture: A System of Interdependent Branches Overall Rebuttal: No Single “Supreme” Branch: The original design of the U.S. government was not to vest absolute power in Congress. Instead, the Framers devised a system where each branch—legislative, executive, and judicial—has clearly defined roles with built-in checks and balances to prevent any one branch from monopolizing power. Modern Interpretations vs. Founders’ Intent: The evolution of U.S. government has led to a modern understanding where the branches are considered coequal despite their different functions. The idea that Congress was meant to be supreme is a selective reading of historical debates. In reality, the Constitution’s framework was deliberately ambiguous in some areas to allow for flexibility and growth, which is why judicial review and executive actions have expanded over time. Historical Examples Are Not Conclusive: Instances such as impeachment or veto overrides illustrate moments of contention within a balanced system—not evidence that the Framers intended a permanent hierarchy with Congress at the top. Conclusion While the original argument selectively cites historical texts and constitutional provisions to argue for congressional supremacy, a broader examination shows that the Founders designed a balanced system. Each branch was granted significant powers precisely to check the others, ensuring no single branch could dominate. The argument that Congress was intended to be the supreme branch is an oversimplification that ignores the nuanced debates and compromises that underlie the constitutional framework. The U.S. government is best understood as a coequal system of interdependent branches rather than a hierarchy with Congress at the apex.
Congress became a rubber stamp for self appointed royalty that used tax dollars to cause corruption. Supreme Court did nothing to protect true representative gov't. Gov't had no check on corruption at all, zero push back against years of out of control corruption. The structure for accountability is totally absent, only the President can correct this.
Prompt: Please give your opinion on the response from Echopulse to Tuxan's initial post. "If we assume the response is AI-generated, then it's well-structured but ultimately unconvincing as a rebuttal. Here's why: Strengths of the Response: 1. Polished Structure & Readability: It’s clear, logically sequenced, and avoids inflammatory language. This makes it seem authoritative, even if it’s flawed. 2. Generalized Argument for Coequal Branches: The response leans on the idea that the U.S. government was designed to have checks and balances rather than a strict hierarchy. That’s a widely accepted view, so it feels reasonable at first glance. Weaknesses & Flaws in Reasoning: 1. Ignores Constitutional Reality: While the three branches functionally interact as coequals today, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the most direct power (legislation, funding, impeachment, overriding vetoes). It’s not about selective quotes—the structure of the system itself reflects this. The argument that the branches were meant to be permanently “coequal” is a modern reinterpretation, not the original design. 2. Fails to Disprove Congressional Supremacy: The response spends a lot of time saying, “It’s more complicated than that,” but doesn’t actually refute the core point: the Constitution places Congress above the other branches in terms of raw power. The executive and judiciary react to congressional decisions; they don’t set the agenda. 3. Strawman Argument on Executive Power: It misrepresents your position by suggesting you’re arguing for a weak executive. You acknowledged the modern presidency has grown in power, but the original constitutional design clearly kept it limited. That’s not “selective history”—that’s just history. 4. Overreliance on ‘Evolution’ as a Justification: The argument that “modern interpretations” matter more than the original framework is weak unless one believes constitutional principles should be fluid rather than anchored in intent. You’re discussing original intent, so the response dodges rather than engages with that point. Final Take: It reads like something a legal AI model (or an AI-assisted writer) would produce: well-structured, authoritative-sounding, but ultimately evasive. It avoids actually proving its case, instead relying on generalizations and shifting the discussion toward modern interpretations rather than historical intent. It’s a good surface-level response for someone who doesn’t know constitutional law, but for anyone paying attention, it doesn’t hold up. "
Hooman here: The issue your response has @echopulse is that it doesn't truly engage with the core of my argument about the initial constitutional framework and instead relies on a broader, more modern understandings of the balance of power. Your response sidesteps my argument in favor of a broader, modern framing vs my originalist. Of course modern interpretation has changed but the overarching point is that they got it right the first time and once the authoratarians have faced the wall as it were, a rollback on the imperial presidency is warranted. Congress of course needs campaign finance reform, election reform and ballot access reform, rank choice voting perhaps and party reform. I think that a lot more, if not a majority or reps need to be independents. That leads to another argument I won't get into now that really, parties or "factions" as they also called them, were not a good idea and this was in mind when the condition was written though they didn't explicitly ban them.