Proving the founders wrong

I am a long-time admirer of American Exceptionalism, as I understood America to be the very first society in history to recognize that our freedoms arise from something innate within us and not from the government. Or as the Founders put it, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

To this end the Founders created the Constitution of the United States, a document that put severe limitations on what the government could and more importantly, could not do. Hence the many provisions in the Constitution that use the words, "Congress shall make no laws'" or other restrictive language about the government's power over American citizens. This document is a legal framework that has ensured freedom for over 200 years and one of the reasons it has worked so effectively is through the innate separation of power vested in the three branches of government, namely the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial. Each of these branches has limited powers. The Congress, or legislative branch, can only enact laws through majority vote in order to be passed. The law is then sent to the President whose signature is required to validate the law. If the President vetoes the law a two-thirds majority of the senate can override the veto. The Supreme Court rules on whether laws are Constitutional when litigated before the court and has the power to rule laws unconstitutional if in their learned opinion the majority of justices so decide. So American government, in principle has a series of checks and balances in place that ensures the rights of its citizens remain inviolate.

---

Except it doesn't. When in 1787 Mrs. Powell famously asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin's unhesitant reply was, "A republic, if you can keep it." I suspect this reply was based on Franklin's deep understanding that at some point in the future America may fall prey to a cabal of "leaders" whose interests do not coincide with those of the people. What's more, America now finds itself in the historically unique position of having an executive branch that refuses to recognize the judicial and legislative branches as its equal. This pretty much underscores Franklin's warning about being able to keep the republic. When the executive branch of the government refuses to abide by the wishes of duly elected and appointed legislators and judges, then the result is the demise of the republic and the rise of a monarchy. Recent musings by several pundits have hit upon the bitter truth that there is absolutely nothing that can be done about King Barack, the First, except impeach him or wait him out. Federal courts have recently ruled that the so-called executive actions instituted by the King are extralegal and constitute a breach of the Constitution. Judge Andrew Hannon is threatening sanctions against the Department of Justice (representing the King against the People) over false statements made by the DOJ, namely that a significant portion of the Obama amnesty program would not go forward until the judge's ruling, when in fact over 108,000 people were given three-year deportation reprieves. So my question is: What if Judge Hannon does impose sanctions on the administration and the administration flips him the bird? Does the judge have the power to arrest violators of his sanctions? Can he order Holder jailed? Can he impose fines or incarceration on the President? For over 200 years American government has been conducted more or less according to the premise outlined by the Founders in the Constitution of the Unites States. We suddenly find ourselves in a unique position where the President is deemed above the law by a timid legislative branch that refuses to hold his lawlessness to account because of his race. What if the King decides that a 2016 Presidential Election is superfluous?