It's a two party system where neither seems to care that the presidency wields too much power, so fixing it is probably in the realm of constitutional amendments at the moment.

Much of the power given to the President here seems to be from legislation itself or lack of legislation altogether. I don't think there's any constitutional changes that would need to take place in order to restrict executive power on subjects like environmental regulation, emergency powers, among other things.

True. But the Senate is broken by being effectively owned by a single senator.

Any four GOP senators can defect and depose Mitch McConnell, but haven't. The Senate is very much in control of 53 people.

100% this. Towing the party line at all cost is what the GOP are doing today.

20 years ago this wouldn't be the case, but keeping the party unified at all cost, against morals, ethics, logic, is what is happening.

What saddens me is the majority vote says they shouldn't be in power in many cases but ultra effective wielding our laws in corner cases has led us to this point. Even while I loathe it, I must say it is quite effective.

Owned by a party, McConnell just takes all of the responsibility because he’s in one of the safest seats

> Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch.

By doing what? Protest?

>here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house.

Solution to that is a functioning Congress, which requires less polarization (i.e. more compromise) and sane campaign finance laws. Term limits couldn't hurt either.

I agree with the general principle, but in this case Congress can't exactly pass a bill for every project requiring environmental review. They have to delegate some authority to the executive here.

I always thought the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process was intuitive. Congress passed an act tasking the executive branch to pick which military bases to close, then there was a guaranteed for/against vote with minimal deliberation and no delays or Filibuster.

In parliamentary democracies, this sort of thing is normally a devolved ministerial power. Of course, it’s a lot easier to get rid of a naughty minister.

> Then, here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house.

Optimistic Democrats cheered Obama's expansive use of executive power (so progressive!), and were dismayed when Trump revoked every executive order that Obama's name was on pretty much immediately after taking power. Perhaps this will be a lesson... but I'm betting that Biden would veto any such limitation even if he had a friendly Congress and Senate.

They cheered because he was doing things they liked, not because he was expanding executive powers. They knew full well that these actions could be undone by the next executive. No one is surprised by this. Obama was doing what he thought was right in the only way left to him: the Republicans controlled the other branches of government and were openly opposed to any compromise. The Republicans still control the Senate and the the courts and Trump, with their complicity, has neutralized all oversight of the executive branch, but it is in his character to rule by fiat, so here we are. What is more remarkable is how little Trump accomplished in his first two years despite controlling all branches of government.