the power to create an oligarchy

or; who actually holds the power

The Constitution is apparently a conundrum of sorts. By design, it was meant to limit the government in power, placing the overall power in WE THE PEOPLE. Except, the legislative holds all “legislative power,” divided between two chambers. Those being a Senate and a House of Representatives. Although the Senate: protect States’ Rights, each State legislature having appointed the two per for a total of 100 senators until the 17^th amendment (1913). Whereas the “House” represents the will of the people, the representatives elected by the people to serve. Both were meant to keep the federal from becoming tyrannical. Imagine … those in power keeping themselves from accumulating too much power. Simplicity in design, no?

But in limiting the power of Congress, the goal was to keep those in power from becoming an oligarchical body. That’s why the Constitution’s Framers put term limits on senators, representatives and the president. The two-year shortness of representatives; they control the purse strings. Thus, get a bad one in, get them out before they can do untold damage like creating massive debt. Yet, the entirety of the system working correctly was a dependence on WE THE PEOPLE.

Then, in the midst of all the power holding checks, two other branches, the Executive, the Judicial. And in the vein of political wherewithal who would have thought any collusion of power would collide between them: The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department. The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. " Again: "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR (Federalist 47).

Yet, in today’s atmosphere, we’re to believe the president has the authority to write “executive orders” ad nauseum and the judicial, acting as sole arbiter is able with gavel in hand, to arbitrarily make law by overruling law while Congress stirs the collective pot? Just look at the country today and a one word descriptive comes to mind: Gadzooks! Anyway, in the scheme of reworking the Constitution to a shell of its intended purpose, Party! has become the driver of politics, and the Constitution is an aside from the agenda of Party. The vicious cycle of power and whoever holds the cards, controls the hand. So, maybe the reality is the Constitution is a great in theory, but bad in application process of government, as control needs to be in the hands of the few, not the many. Especially if those who “serve” can stay in power. Seriously, didn’t Congress limit the president to two terms only (22^nd amendment), whereas the 535, who, out of a nation of 330 million plus are without limits and definitely define the “few.”