[HelloMcFly]

> In other words, it was the executive branch that had taken more power previously.

If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling.

[tivert]

> If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling.

But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment.

To give an extreme though-experiment example: Lets say Congress 1) packed the Supreme Court with yes-men, 2) passed law giving themselves a huge pay raise and delegating all legislative powers to the President, while they go party. Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

[HelloMcFly]

> But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment make it permanent, but Congress never actually lost control. They always had the power - and still do - amend, restrain, clarify their own laws.

> Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

In a scenario with a packed Supreme Court of "yes men" there are no bounds to what could happen, so why bother with the thought experiment? In your example, the constitution is already worthless.