@Phil I think you’ve just found a scapegoat and obsess about it. States would have health, building, fire and other safety codes without the Federal government. State and municipal red tape is where almost all the pain is from a small business perspective, and the contents of that and the character of its enforcement varies tremendously by locality. The Federal government often forestalls state level regulation in the name of harmonization. 1/

@Phil Yes, there are some Federal mandates many states on their own might not adopt. Some states would not pass a law like ADA, if its requirements had not been Federalized. But laws as discretionary (from the majority public’s perspective) as ADA are the exception not the rule. The broad public of every state does not want eating out to be a “caveat emptor” activity. /fin

@Phil The Bill of Rights was much stronger in 1999 than in 1789. “Congress can make no law” had been extended to government can make no law, including at the state level. It was by 1999 a different government than in 1789 — the 14th Amendment is described as a new founding for a reason — but from an individual liberties perspective it had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. 1/

@Phil The balance between Federal and State authorities had shifted in ways some of them might have approved or disapproved of. But the “states’ rights” aspect of the Constitution was not about liberty — state government can be as restrictive of liberty as the federal, and most “red tape” like building, safety, fire codes is at state and municipal levels. 2/

@Phil The states-rights aspect of the Constitution was mostly about the fact that the existence of the new Federal government depended on upon ratification by states, so state-level *elites* had to be consoled their prerogatives would remain intact. 3/

@Phil The only principled argument for “states rights” is the notion that states are closer to their people, and therefore better democracies, but actual history has shown that often state-level elites have stripped their publics of democratic rights, so it’s not a very compelling claim. True believers of those theory ought to be extremely respectful of local and municipal government supremacy, but they almost never are. 4/

@Phil But it was simultaneously the freest and most capable country the world had ever seen, the values they had enshrined but not lived up to in the Declaration largely though incompletely achieved. 5/

@Phil It breaks my heart what the subsequent quarter century has done. /fin

@Phil Congress is the only representative element of our Constitutional system. Courts can only “legislate” when Congress abdicates (except the Supreme Court, when they Constitutionalize issues, ought to be much harder). Congress can insist upon its meanings. If we want a functioning democracy, delegating neither to the president nor the courts will get us there. We need to reform how we elect and incentivize Congress, to render it vigorous. 1/

@Phil Re what if there’s a catastrophic official when Congress is on leave, almost always independent agencies permit Presidential termination for cause. If “catastrophic” is just disagrees with the President, that’s what independent agencies are supposed to enable. In extreme cases, Congress can always convene. Again, the vigor or Congress—not the courts, or the President, or the Fed—is the heart of our problem. There’s no democracy in our system without repairing Congress./fin

@Phil No. Only if you define "executive power" to be what is assigned to the President. The Constitution defines a balance of roles and activities, and includes Congress in the structuring of offices under the executive. It plainly has a role in defining roles and hiring (contradicting your "ALL executive power"), when it chooses to. 1/

@Phil It's a shame that the obvious corollary with respect to an ability to structure a role in firing is not discussed in the text one way or the other. The Humphrey's court resolved the ambiguity correctly. /fin