I prefer the British system: parliament is sovereign and the primary source of all power. The executive is derivative of the lower-house and the courts merely r

I prefer the British system: parliament is sovereign and the primary source of all power. The executive is derivative of the lower-house and the courts merely resolve issues between laws (and it used to be that the courts, derived from the upper-house -- which i'd go back to). The benefit of the legislature being the source of all power is it leads to a tremendously stable system. Tremendous instability arises from the legislature being neutered (as by the courts, or the executive). As popular sentiment is profoundly frustrated, and the legislature absolves itself of responsibility to govern. Almost all the "culture wars" in the US can be traced to the supreme court, as can the civil war -- which in its rebuke against the Missouri compromise caused the civil war!. "Balance of powers" systems have always ended up in civil wars. The post-civilwar presidential system is the longest such a system has survived: but let's be clear, it failed (ie., there was a civil war). That means of running governments has led to all of them collapsing. I'd incorporate the constitution as an act of the legislature; and subordinate the supreme court to work like every other: reviewing laws for consistency between themselves -- and not for consisency with "higher principles". The legislature can then, by any act if it wishes, elaborate or change the constitution to resolve "contradictions" the supreme court points out. This hands power back to the body actually responsible for governing. (The instability due to Brexit in the UK precisely arose from the legislature stupidly binding itself with the Fixed-Term Parliaments act, which is now being revoked. Had that not been in place, Brexit would have been resolved immediately. And, incidentally, it is precisely that the EU is a "constitutional order" in the US sense which is causing its internal stress; and why the UK left. )