[rayiner]

The term “checks and balances” refers to the constitution. The constitution says, as the first sentence of Article II: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Article I and Article III have nearly identical language. Nobody thinks Congressional staffers or judicial law clerks impose “checks and balances” on the elected or appointed officials that hold the constitutional office. Why is the President any different?

[skissane]

I think you are right that the US constitution, as originally written, doesn't provide any internal "checks and balances" on the executive branch, other than the President. Congress and the judiciary act as external checks and balances on the President (and also inferior officials, since Congress can impeach inferior officials, and the courts can rule against them). The President acts as an internal check and balance on the executive branch (powers to fire inferior officials, direct them, demand information from them)

Not to say that I think this good policy or constitution design – it grants the President an essentially monarchical position. As The Knoxville Journal once said (9 February 1896), "Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king". I think the more collegial form of executive branch leadership found in the Westminster system – in which a Prime Minister has to continually keep the confidence of their party, since they can be removed at any time for any reason (no allegations of misconduct required); in which Cabinet makes decisions by majority vote (and the PM sometimes loses the vote), unlike the US Cabinet where no votes are taken – leads to better governance.

Maybe, one day, "Prime Minister of the United States" will be a real job title

[hayst4ck]

> There’s no “checks and balances” within the executive branch.

The check and balance within every branch is the law, one which many state AG and court officials believe or have ruled is being violated.

The law is quite literally a limit on arbitrary uses of power. It is a check on concentrated power, and balances competing interests.

> Who did it?

Oligarchs.

H1B visa/undocumented labor are an anti labor power policy. Not only does it increase the supply of the workforce suppressing wages, but it gives companies coercive power over foreign laborers, preventing them from ever going on strike or asking for rights. Worse, when things start going poorly, oligarchs blame these people who just wanted a better life and then use the oligarchy controlled media to deflect people's rage away from the people hoarding wealth and power onto someone weaker than them, which gives them a sense of agency.

[rayiner]

> the check and balance within every branch is the law

“The law” is it enforced and interpreted by humans. And the fundamental axiom of the constitution is that nobody can be trusted. Do you think the framers went to all that trouble to create this tripartite system, and then assume that all three branches would be checked by unelected prosecutors? If what you said was true, why does the constitution not mention an attorney general that could enforce “the law?”