Seperation of power was meant between the people and the states not the 3 branches.

Anyone who has read the constitution understands that the new federal government was primarily made up of the congress and then a weak executive, and a weak judicial branch. Lets review shall we, it will be clear by the end of this that the founding fathers never meant for the 3 branches to be co-equal. But for the Congress to dominate.

Article 1 which is for the Legislature is long and detailed and clear. They have the power to approve, and remove officers, to override veto's and the whole power of legislation rests in their hands with the power split between the two houses.

Article 2- Says the requirements for office, how they are elected, how they can be removed, and then says they are the commander and chief, the head of government basically the countries international rep. That the President can veto legislation, and can appoint people to positions provided for in the constitution and others created by congress

Article 3- Section 1 The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Is a big nothing bugger other than giving congress even more power

Section 2 also gives them no solid power


The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

wow even more congressional power.

Also they didn't even get their own building.

So I think it is clear by this that, congress was always meant to be supreme, we have a president because we need an executive but can't do anything without a willing congress, and we have a court system that was left up to congress to create because we needed one.

 

Edit between the people and the states and the state and the federal government.

 

A nice if basic summary of the constitution, but unfortunately your conclusion is far from the truth. The framers tried diligently to build a separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. They wanted all three to be co-equal but didn't think they succeeded with the judiciary. (If only they could see the judicial oligarchy today!!) They knew it was a difficult thing to do -- it had never been done before -- and tried to effect it by putting in restrictions so that no branch could dictate to any other branch. They knew that congress might be the strongest because they are the only branch that can make law. But they put serious constraints on that power, which unfortunately has long been trampled down with serious help from the Supreme Court. But make no mistake, no branch can have dominion over any other. Congress investigating the president just to see what they might find would make the framers roll over in their graves after seeing their failure in a primary attribute of the government they created.

 

The congress could theoretically, just repeal all the Judiciary acts and the courts would cease to exist, as for the presidency if congress is united then they are powerless like with the post war Andrew who was pushed to the side and almost removed. In the 1930s FDR was able to threaten the courts into letting his legislation pass because the courts knew the congress could finish him if they wanted to.

If a wanna be dictator duo became speaker of the house and majority leader and happened to get 2/3 support, what couldn't they do? Hell even with a simple majority, they could screw up the courts and executive branch.

 

You are not correct that congress can get rid of the Supreme Court (though they can eliminate all federal district and appeals courts) or directly overturn any of their decisions. But you are correct, outside of declaring martial law -- which itself would be extremely dicey and problematic -- that there is no way for anyone to stop congress from overthrowing a president -- even though the framers stewed and thought heavily on ways to prevent that. They just could not come up with anything.

 

They are, in the sense that none of them is answerable to any authority higher than the People, the supreme expression of Whose will is the Constitution.

As noted above, Congress may not abolish SCOTUS; but even if it scrapped the lower courts, SCOTUS would retain all the powers the Judiciary had as of ratification of 11A in 1795.

All that aside, I have no idea what your OP has to do with "sep[a]ration of power [] between the people and the states", whatever the hell that means.

 

This is a new idea to me
Is it your idea,
Or are you repeating an idea you have heard elsewhere?

 

I mean the House (people) and senate (states)

This is my idea/interpretation seeing as congress gets the vast majority of constitutional power.