+22

Actually, also in relation to POST 12, it seems that the way the constitution was written shows that branch exclusivity and it did not take the risk of depending on the creation argument mentioned in that post and its possible susceptibility to arguing that the creating instructions did not start from the zero stage.

+21

Continuing from the preceding post

The constitution starts with the creation of this three branch entity to lead the union. However, while this entity represents the whole to the outside, it still has its separate existence as a thing inside. But after the creation of this entity, the constitution itself, unless otherwise indicated, would be, like the rest of the world, talking to that entity from the outside. It is ironic how the opinion of the court itself recognize this separate existence except that it does that from the outside where it should be hidden from the view.  

+20

Maybe already noticed, but  I was wrong in POST 12 to say that there was no exclusivity between the states and the federal government because the constitution was not dividing power between those entities. It is congress that has no exclusivity with the states. So although congress has exclusivity relative to other branches of the government, giving it the power on something does not tell if that is just locally relative to the other branches of the federal government or within the whole union. In other words, we don't know if congress should be taken as representing just that head or the whole body with it.