Deadlock is a feature not a bug. You want deadlock because one side or another pushing their agenda against the majority is the road to totalitarianism. If there is a deadlock, should one side of another simply dictate? Of course not.
If Trump ran the executive branch, would you want him pushing through via administrative fiat things that Congress doesn’t want? I certainly don’t want the EPA making policy — I want them doing what Congress explicitly tasks then to do. Same for other agencies. It’s the Major Questions doctrine.
Congress exists for a reason. The executive branch executes the will of the states and people as indicated by Congress. That’s the entire point of Congress.
There is a difference between a system working as intended, and a system working well. Given that the US constitution is now 230+ years old, we are seeing a huge divergence between the two.
The deadlock may be intentional, but it cannot be said that this is a desirable mode of operation when comparing to other countries that have much more effective governance and healthier societies.
Justice Scalia basically agreed with you: gridlock is essential for protecting minority interests.
> And I hear Americans saying this nowadays, and there's a lot of it going around. They talk about a "dysfunctional government" because there's disagreement. And the Framers would have said, "Yes, that's exactly the way we set it up. We wanted this to be power contradicting power -- because the main ill that beset us" -- as Hamilton said in The Federalist when he talked about a separate Senate -- He said, "Yes, it seems inconvenient, but inasmuch as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won't be so bad." This is 1787 -- he didn't know what an excess of legislation was.
> So, unless Americans can appreciate that and learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love the gridlock, which the Framers believed would be the main protection of minorities -- the main protection. If a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard on some minority [and] they think it's terribly unfair, it doesn't take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system.
> So, Americans should appreciate that and they should learn to love the gridlock. It's there for a reason -- so that the legislation that gets out will be good legislation.
If Trump ran the executive branch, would you want him pushing through via administrative fiat things that Congress doesn’t want? I certainly don’t want the EPA making policy — I want them doing what Congress explicitly tasks then to do. Same for other agencies. It’s the Major Questions doctrine.
Congress exists for a reason. The executive branch executes the will of the states and people as indicated by Congress. That’s the entire point of Congress.