By promoting the Constitution as protector of individual rights and liberties, we have, inadvertently on most people’s part, overlooked HOW the Constitution accomplishes that. Certainly, neither oaths nor the delineation of three parts or branches accomplishes that. And the prohibitions enumerated in the first ten amendments, erroneously called a Bill of Rights does not accomplish anything either.
Process is what is responsible for doing anything and process is actually what is defined in the main body of the document where the duties and obligations of the various agents are specified. The President SHALL do this and the Congress SHALL do that and the courts SHALL do the other. Those are orders. But, perhaps to be nice, the authors of the Constitution framed them as “powers” and now that word has gone to some people’s heads.
Then too there is the peoblem that the importance of the POTUS has been grossly overrated (as the current occupant demonstrates in spades, the position can be filled by a near idiot), perhaps in hopes of attracting better applicants, but has had the opposite effect. Delusions of grandeur seem more and more in evidence.
The marvel is that the potentiality of our current situation was actually anticipated and remedies provided. That should prove reassuring to other populations inclined towards self-government. Ironically, the fact that the POTUS actually does nothing and has done nothing, other than issue objectionable and offensive directives, makes it difficult to hold him to account. Subordinates, however, are vulnerable not just to dismissal, but prosecution. The DoJ would not be arguing so vociferously for immunity (like that enjoyed by prosecutors, for example), if that were not the case. IMMUNITY is a hot button issue. Agents of law enforcement enjoy qualified immunity, IF THEY GO BY THE BOOK. Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity based on the mistaken assumption that their official duties are merely ministerial—i.e. to transmit information from the executive branch to the judicial. In other words, a minister is presumed to act like a nonentity, not a responsible person. (It was because Sessions was responsible that he properly recused himself from the 2016 campaign investigation. Trump, not being a lawyer does understand that and is too dense to learn. Barr does not want the Constitution interpreted that way because he is an originalist and prefers to believe the framers did not mean what they said.)
It is not possible for people who are fixated on personalities to understand this stuff. Congress is taking important steps in asserting its authority over the purse and legislation. Over a decade of pretending the impotent POTUS is all important has been very detrimental. Why did Congress do it? To retain power surreptitiously. That may seem contradictory, but what Capitol Hill has been about is they surrendered their real authority over the nation’s resources and assets in exchange for securing their individual ability to collect income and manipulate their colleagues to no purpose other than status.
Think of it as the difference between wringing out the laundry and simply wringing your hands.