The founders of the republic argued long and hard to establish a balance between the executive and legislative branches of their new, unprecedented, and untried model of government.

Under the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, there was no executive branch. There was, however, a functionary known as “the President of the United States in Congress Assembled” carried over from the Continental Congress that predated adoption of the Articles.

This individual was elected by the other members of the Congress, had little power, and was supposed to serve as an “impartial moderator” and presiding officer during meetings of Congress.

There is still a debate among historians (who love to engage in wars of words over arcane historical details) as to the identity of the first such “president” of the United States.

There are partisans for both Samuel Huntington and John Hanson. Take your pick, but don’t lose sleep over it. The identity of the real first “president” isn’t important unless you’re a historian.

If this model had persisted, that is, a member of Congress being elected to preside over the Congress, the United States may well have developed into a parliamentary democracy not unlike that of the United Kingdom.

The model did not persist, because the founders concluded the model did not work, or at a minimum, did not work well enough.

It was felt there should be an executive, with powers independent of the Congress. The executive branch would be strong enough to push back against the legislative branch but would not be so strong as to overpower Congress.

It’s all part of the “checks and balance” thing you might have learned about in middle school civics class if you hadn’t been so busy passing notes back and forth about who was doing what with whom.

Of the three branches of government, it is the executive branch that has morphed into something that the founders would be least likely to recognize.

Over the 231 years of our republic, strong and ambitious presidents, often with the cooperation of Congresses all too anxious to avoid the hard decisions, have expanded the functions of the office to an extent that under the current president, it is argued that there are few limits to what a president can do. Congress is seen as little more than a debating society whose debates have little to do with the course of the nation.

The prerogatives claimed by the current president make it plain that he believes the Constitution gives him the power to overpower Congress in pursuit of goals he himself has the sole power to determine.

This era of our national journey will pass, either by electoral defeat, term limitations (assuming they are honored,) or the discovery by Mitch McConnell that he is not the only Grim Reaper on the field of play.

We are probably talking about no more than five years. There are new car warranties that last longer.

What follows Number 45 could become interesting.

Republican caucuses in the House and Senate, freed from the sword hanging over their heads wielded by a president whose mere words can conjure primary opponents out of thin air, may rediscover their long lost spines and resolve to never find themselves at such a disadvantage ever again.

They may well find Democrats, also reduced to impotence, who would be more than willing to cooperate in clipping the wings of a presidency grown too powerful and overbearing.

There are ways this can be done short of amending the Constitution –assuming the will to do it.

Once the ball gets rolling, it may well become impossible to stop.

A campaign to redress presidential overreach could easily become a crusade to neuter future occupants of the White House.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the administration claiming the most radical expansion of executive power ever could become the proximate cause of the reduction of the executive branch to a role as close as constitutionally possible to the much more limited presidency originally envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

The opportunity for congressional overreach is obvious.

Lest we forget, the President of the United States in Congress Assembled proved inadequate to the reality of governing.

There is no reason to expect an improvement the second time around.

Judiciously clipping the wings of a presidency that might need some trimming is one thing. Cutting off the wings is something else entirely.

Will that future Congress have the self-discipline to trim and not eviscerate?

Hey, I’m totally confident in a future Congress’s ability to exercise self-restraint.

How about you?