As I posted on a similar thread a good while ago, our founding fathers did not fully recognize the primary threat from congress.
They were convinced that the worst, most abuse of power would be that congress enacted a "bad law". Hence the rules of congress, an executive branch that can challenge laws, and a judicial branch with the power to overturn laws.
However, in my opinion, the worst, most abuse of power, would be that congress spends money. Alas there are few checks and balances to prevent congress from collecting and spending money.
My solution?
As much as I despise larger government, it is my belief that we need a fourth branch of government. This fourth branch would have the power (and only them) to raise/collect taxes. But they would have no authority to spend any tax money. Congress, therefore would continue to have the authority to spend money but can only spend the money allocated by the new branch of government. Congress wants to spend more money, they have to make their case to this new branch consisting of elected representatives.
There would be a series of checks and balances now between the four branches of government.
It is simply a poor idea to have one branch of the government with the power to raise taxes and to spend tax money.
Executive branch can not spend any money not allocated to it by congress.
Congress can not allocate any money that has not been collected by my new branch.
I guess our founding fathers were more familiar with tyrants and despots making repressive laws than scumbag congresshumans spending money.
But, since congress is the primary way to amend the constitution, what do you figure are the chances of congress voting to reduce their power/graft potential??????
Slightly less than zero I think.
Congress - A great theory of government, but a lousy in practicality.