M: The Constitution is as close to a programming language as 1787 could produce. In fact, at that point, and even into today, the framing of law is almost its own programming language. From that perspective, Article 1 bootstraps an entity called Congress, defining the kernel of the country and allocating all powers that flow from the constituency into a body which holds most of these powers, whether they are known to exist or not, into escrow under its control; only a few of those powers are accessible to Congress, and only to Congress. These powers allow it to build and maintain agencies which can utilize the powers Congress has not been explicitly given access to in order to make the country run, in the same way that an OS requires various programs and interfaces in order to do anything but sit there. Article 2 and 3 both use the same language to define their agencies, a language which is explicitly different from that used to instantiate Congress because they are hard-coded examples of the agencies which will allow the country to develop in the correct direction of a democratic republic. Absent these articles, a solo Congress could go from anything to socialism to theocracy to fascism depending on what agencies it chose to form. The executive and judicial agencies were predefined only because they were necessary to prevent that kind of open-ended existence. But the repetition of the language used in their articles is important because of the particularity of legal syntax. The language from Article 1 was not repeated because it would be redundant declaration of a kernel. They are instead examples of the template for creating an agency to deal with a power Congress itself is not allowed to handle: “The X power shall be vested in Y.” Since Article 1 entrusted all the powers to Congress, it follows that that investiture is an example of the formation of an agency, not the establishment of some kind of co-equal branch. They are the first branches off of the trunk and roots that are Congress. The misunderstanding of the purpose of the executive branch is because of modern language. The president is not an executive in the manner of a company president that guides their path. In 1787, he was intended to be the executor, as in the guy who carries out a will. It should be obvious by the rest of the article, but misapprehension due to language drift has screwed that up. Getting back to programming languages, he is intended to have no more control over the execution of laws than an executable is intended to write its own programming. The judiciary agency is essentially the debugger. If you consider the laws as being written to some sort of logical database, then the judiciary is supposed to access that database and consider whether or not there is a contradiction. Scholars agree that, in terms of powers, the Constitution is explicit. That is, there is no implicit inheritance. This, combined with the idea of Congress forming agencies to grant administration of a particular power, implies that no other agency, such as the executive, can syntactically absorb the function of an agency or consider it to be directly under its control. This is because if that were true, then that agency would gain control of a power implicitly, which is strictly forbidden even by those scholars who don't understand programming languages. And again, the president is an executor, not an executive. They are not the superuser who has defined the agency. They have been given some administrative access to perform progress checks and maintain that progress, not to interfere or otherwise alter the execution of that agency's progress. The language of 1787 and the context in it was written is different from that of the current understanding. For example, the idea of someone serving at someone else's pleasure was not an idea of gratification and absolute control, but rather in contrast of a king who was able to exercise that absolute control. So it's preposterous to interpret the phrase “at the pleasure of”to mean exactly what it was supposed to contrast against. At the time of drafting, it implied that a procedure could only be begun by the president, not that he had absolute control. In the same way, the president serves at the pleasure of Congress, in that he can't simply be summarily removed, but Congress is the only person who can begin that procedure. The legal definition of that procedure is therefore required to be followed, not a suggestion that can be ignored. Any This deed done by the President in terms of control is not just illegal, but constitutionally illegal. One of the first things the executive agency is tasked with is that they shall execute the laws of the country. In context, that shall is binding. It is fucking required. There is no stalling or decision to be made, and any attempt to do so contradicts the law and therefore is illegal. This is not to say they must succeed, but that any impediment is illegal. So if a law says that the Treasury shall spend money that has or that it shall be allocated and distributed, the President has no authority through the Constitution to impede this distribution or decide it should not be distributed. The explicit nature of the Constitution requires that any modifications can be made but must be explicit in terms of powers. For example, it is not impossible that the executive could somehow be given the power to withhold fund allocation, but in order to do so, a law would have to explicitly give that capacity to the executive. All of this is derived solely from considering the Constitution. On one hand, it runs contradictory to current doctrine. On the other hand, arguing that that makes it invalid is the fallacy of appealing to tradition and/or appealing to authority. None of these claims, I believe, are contradicted by the contents of the Constitution. Although it's entirely possible that some laws have modified the final result. In fact, although due to its conclusions, I doubt it would be, just by virtue of the fact that it refers to nothing but the Constitution, it should be welcomed by people who call themselves originalists. Doubly so because at least a few of these claims are backed up by statements in the Federalist Papers, meaning that it's not just a logical derivation, but actually confirmed by the statements of people who wrote it. This may not be the only complete interpretation of the Constitution using only itself as a reference, and it may not be the best one if others exist, but I do claim that it appears to be complete in that most of what I have already claimed could, past a certain point, be logically concluded from those few statements. In fact, I thought this out on my own, then asked AI to logically derive the consequences of considering the Constitution to be a linear program with Article 1 as the bootstrap declaration. With no further input, it generated about 95% of what I had already concluded.