Or were.
They do not share power equitably.
Congress legislates. It doesn't control the administration directly. It doesn't control the SCOTUS.
The courts decide what are reasonable interpretations of the laws. It's arguable that Marbury is implied. Otherwise there's nothing keeping Congress from passing a law establishing a religion and banning free speech.
Were the Congress to do that, then the only impediment to its implementation would be the Executive's authority to execute the laws faithfully. Failure to do that is a violation of the President's oath. Jackson failed this, but Congress didn't ultimately punish him. Notice that when Jackson ignored SCOTUS, nothing much happened, at least to Jackson. The Cherokee would disagree.
Justice is in charge of criminal prosecutions. It cannot sentence and try, however (except to the extent the separation of powers is ignored, which isn't a trivial violation at this point), but then we quibble over the precise meaning of "criminal". But the courts don't mete out punishment, nor do the courts ex parte establish what the laws are and what punishments are.
Equitable power sharing would give SCOTUS, the Executive, and Congress equal powers to make law, enforce it, and rule on criminality and in other kinds of cases. That, of course, would be chaos.
This idea--separation of powers--shows up in elementary school in my state. Is elaborated a bit more in middle school. And there's a semester course required in government (which focuses on the Constitution, bill of rights, enumerated and implied powers, branches of government and their powers, then significant cases and laws).
= new reply since forum marked as read
