If any of the framers of the Constitution were alive today they would be horrified about the bloated and mutated executive branch. The POTUS was supposed to be a relatively weak figurehead that was a remnant of the British royalty. The Constitution was ratified at a time when the British Parliament was increasingly gaining power over the royalty. The way the constitution is written one can presume that the framers were proposing a hybrid of the British Parliamentary system and replacing a weakening royalty figurehead with the POTUS . If we are to make any inference about the importance of the POTUS and the executive branch one should review a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
Below is the table of contents for the Constitution excluding amendments.
Preamble
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature
Section 2 - The House
Section 3 - The Senate
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Section 6 - Compensation
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
Section 4 - Disqualification
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
Section 3 - Treason
Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor All Others
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
Section 3 - New States
Section 4 - Republican Government
Article 5 - Amendment
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
Article 7 - Ratification
Signatories
One can presume that articles of the Constitution were listed sequentially on the basis of importance. Article I covers the legislative branch and is by far the lengthiest and most substantive part of the document. Article II is very short and a fair reading of Article II really gives the President very little power. Section 1 covers mostly the method of election of the POTUS and required personal qualifications. Section 2 Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments includes the phrase "commander in chief" in the context of civilian control of the military.The idea that the POTUS would be the "commander in chief" was to prevent military control over the armed forces if Congress declared war. Otherwise, a declaration of war by Congress could have led to military control over the country. It was not meant to be a carte blanche Presidential privilege.
Section 3 covers the annual report to Congress of the "state of the union." The POTUS has to report to Congress which to me clearly suggests that he is subservient to Congress in executing the laws of the land as directed by Congress. It is the POTUS that has to account to Congress his stewardship of the directions given to him initiated by Congress. Section 4 is about impeachment.
Article III covers the Judicial Branch which is even shorter and simpler than Article II. The Constitution is a very short document with the bulk of the content and importance ascribed to Article I, Congress. So what happened between 1787 and 2008 that has so distorted a document that was clearly meant to put most of the power in the hands of the legislative branch. As it did in Rome, It appears that this republic has evolved into a quasi-dictatorship. Where did America metaphorically cross the Rubicon and what can we the people do about it?
As I suggested in my title, it is not the POTUS that will lead us to the promised land. The idea that one person can change the course of a nation is a fiction that can only occur in a Disney movie. Just as the POTUS has to account to Congress so it is with Congress having to account to the people who elected them. Constitutionally, the people do not elect the POTUS. It is the Electoral College that elects the POTUS even in the modern truncated version of their selection and constitutionally since the President is not elected by the people, he is technically only accountable to Congress. It is amazing to me how Congress has abandoned its responsibility of setting the agenda. And it is about time that they start taking control over the problems of this nation that have been caused mostly by Congress abandoning its constitutional duty.
The idea that a President sets the legislative agenda is hard to justify if one reads Article I with any sort of objectivity. Yet, because of the partisanship that has developed in rallying around the political party of the President the legislative agenda is standing on its head. That is why Washington suggested in his farewell address the danger of political parties that could undermine the Constitution and the importance of the legislative branch. He knew that partisanship could create a kind constitutional merging of the legislative and executive branch that by default would give extraordinary power to the POTUS. That is exactly where we are today. That is why I do not believe that this Presidential election is as important as the Congressional elections.
Many fear that the new POTUS will affect significantly the appointments to the Supreme Court. But, the Senate must confirm any nomination by the President again supporting the supremacy of the legislative branch. When we go through the list of most of the problems of this country we find constitutionally the remedies in the legislative branch. That is why I believe that we the people should focus all of our energy on the election and accountability of the next Congress. The 535 people in the Senate and House are the only people who collectively can make the changes necessary to make America a republic again. I do think that we can hold the members of Congress responsible for taking us back to where the framers wanted us to be by honoring them with compliance to the spirit and substance of a wonderfully simple and elegant document signed over 220 years ago.