ones that have received judicial review that do not adhere to your principle of absolute Presidential power in the way you state it so unequivocally in every possible scenario. And by the way, this becomes especially true for a former President.

The Atomic Energy Act sets a specific procedure that is both different and in effect limiting related to what a President must do to declassify certain nuclear information. I will give you that you can find opinions out there that ask whether this would with absolute certainty be upheld under a Constitutional challenge. I think most believe the answer is yes -- its the minority and outlier opinions who suggest otherwise, and it has been on the books since 1954 ---- so at the very least, it's silly to suggest it's some "obviously unconstitutional" statute that nobody has ever thought about.

There are major other examples where courts have specifically noted that the notion of separation of powers does not mean some perfectly bright and obvious line whereby Congress cannot possibly pass a Constitutional statute that has some technically limiting effect on some Presidential movement or that there aren't Constitutional limits on aspects of what a President can do. You seem to be suggesting this is an obviously wrong concept that simply isnt possible. This is a major concept and an historically interesting area of Supreme Court law. Your opinion seems to be odd wonder -- why has this ever been such a major area of discussion because really...."it's all so obvious". A good place to start would be reading the a vibrant discussion about limits on the Executive from the 1952 Youngstown case.

I think you are glossing over the actual core of cases like the Clinton tapes and the actual language of the PRA. It isn't that silly lip service is given in those cases to what defines personal papers -- its that this analysis is actually key because a President in fact cannot wave his hand and say this spy list is personal. You say matter-of-factly that of course he can. I believe that would lose this legal argument. And there exists other examples of this kind of limiting language which whether you like it or not -- with judicial review and other analysis that is extremely reasonable.

Imo -- your entire stance is in reality -- you think any analysis or review like this is "unequivocally and obviously" wrong --- that any court or any analysis that has or would uphold the Atomic Energy Act for example or the PRA or any statute that speaks in any way to Presidential powers as anything other than essentially absolute --- all grossly unconstitutional. I assume as you glanced at the actual Clinton sock drawer case, your primary thought was that Clinton was also being unfairly attacked because he shouldn't have to even try and show the tapes were personal - if he said so, no more work at any level should be needed...right?

I'm sure you are not the only one who feels the examples above and others that I believe exist are an affront to the Constitution. But I'm just trying to respectfully suggest that I'm at least pretty sure your opinion is more of the extreme and outlier -- not that separation of powers isnt a real concept...it is -- but the way you seemingly interpret its application in every single possible scenario is an outlier analysis -- even to a great number of generally conservative judges (again, probably not all). Hold to whatever opinion you want, sure --- but I'd check that attitude about "Hey, its everyone else's responsibility to show me the person or law that proves how I can possibly be wrong because what I'm saying is incredibly obvious". I've given you specific examples and I'm sure you recognize this. You just completely disagree that such examples are correctly analyzed or ignore their existence. That is your choice.