The doctrine if separation of powers -- what it means and what it doesn't mean. Congress has passed many laws in the history of our country that in real life function have an effect on what the President may be able to do in some particular instance. It is intellectually "fair" to generally ask "gee, might the PRA or some other example truly be ok if it has such effect -- doesn't the notion of separation of powers prohibit any law that can possibly even in theory have an effect on a President?". The answer is a resounding "no" - that would be an incredibly simplistic and insincere way to argue a separation of powers doctrine in this context -- again, as addressed in many ways at many times in our nation's history by courts all over the political spectrum. Again, it doesn't mean we dont maintain a doctrine about separation of powers, but it doesn't operate the way you suggest is so "obvious if you just think about it". it did strike me as somewhat bizarre to see anyone argue the "obviously wrong and unconstitutional" existence of the PRA. I honestly didn't understand what you were even trying to argue.

I'm not going to cite a string of case law here. If you are that fascinated by it - great, it's not hard to learn more. But it's fairly silly imo both intellectually and based on any actual case law analysis to argue that the PRA is some obvious encroachment of separation of powers. I am not predicting it is ever 100% impossible for some individual lawyer or judge to ever take an opposite stance. Just about any opinion seems possible by someone out there on any issue in today's world. But it would be an extreme, outlier opinion that is a complete break from analysis up to this point in our nation's history -- not something "obvious if you just think about it".