James Madison seems to argue in Federalists 48 that the best way to keep one branch of government from becoming tyrannical (and thereby preserve liberty) is to arm each branch with "weapons" (i.e. constitutional powers) that can be used to fight each other when one tries to "draw...all power into its impetuous vortex." This is why the U.S. Constitution provides the branches of government with some powers that seemed to be shared between two branches. It hands each branch a pair of pistols, which creates a "Mexican Standoff" among the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.
In other words, the U.S. Constitution creates a cage match where the President, Congress, Courts, and State Governments are eternally fighting each other for absolute power.
Do you think the constant fighting among the branches of government (let's throw in the media in there too) is the best way to preserve liberty? Doesn't it seem counterintuitive that the best way to preserve liberty is to create a system that encourages perpetual political contention?
It was meant to be contentious to avoid tyrrany. The judiciary has increased its power beyond constitutional bounds in the last 60 or so years. Legislative and Executive need to push back. Both Lincoln and Jackson told the Supreme Court to go enforce their own decisions at one time or another. We need a president to do that now.
Do you think Executive branch has increased its power? If so, do you think both branches are being given these powers from the legislature?
I say we should get rid of all the current politicians...