Someone said it's surprising that all three branches of the U.S. government are actively trying to shirk their duties. The President blames Congress for inaction. Congress makes vague and overly complicated bills that mostly enables the executive branch to do actual rulemaking. The Supreme Court, as a rule, tries to be as narrow and impactless as possible.
The founders assumed each branch would compete for power. They didn't expect them to actively push responsibility on to other people. It seems like that's why we have a healthy and growing bureaucratic state these days.
> The founders assumed each branch would compete for power.
They do. Part of that competition is trying to pass blame for things to the other branches, including blame for inaction that the people in office want but the electorate does not, since blame = reduced public support = reduced effective power.
> They didn't expect them to actively push responsibility on to other people.
They probably did, since the framers had plenty of experience with elected politicians (often being such themselves) and blame passing among such politicians is as old as electoral politics (and blame-shifting among politicians more generally is pretty much universal in history, too.)
When the time comes, they'll just ignore the Constitution or at least relieve it of its meaning.
The path to a healthy government has to include rule of law. I think the slippery slope we are on is very dangerous. When people decide ignoring the Constitution is easier and just as legitimate as amending it, it is the beginning of the end. I think we already passed that point and I'm not sure how we can recover.
