Memory is vague on this. I know we had some sort of president under the Articles, but not an executive branch per se. The drafters of the Constitution called themselves "Federalists," a deliberate misnomer, because they wanted to sell the Constitution as a Federal Union, meaning the States were not giving up much sovereignty, but in reality, they gave up a lot. The Jeffersonians were only brought on board by the promise of a Bill of Rights. As you probably well know, each state could, and many did have an "established church" under the Constitution. It was the Supreme Court that slowly chipped away at that "state's right." When Jackson refused to enforce Worcester v Georgia in 1832, he was doing enormous damage to Native Americans, but he was on firm Constitutional grounds. It was his job to enforce or not enforce, as he saw fit. My real argument here is that 5-4 decisions of the Court are every bit as arbitrary and tyrannical as anything an executive can do. Worse, really, for those people are in there for life. I say the Court should only be allowed to rule on Constitutionality if they have a 6-3. Otherwise it only applies to the litigants, not the rest of us. I also don't think any lower court in the land should have the power to rule on Constitutionality, esp. no single judge. That really is tyranny.Well, that I can't agree with. What the framers were more afraid of than anything was a strong central figure crushing them individually. They saw the need for a powerful President -- and deliberately limited him by making it necessary for him to interact with Congress, particularly on treaties (the Senate) and spending (the House). They saw the need to limit what the Congress could do -- and so removed the executive power from them. They saw the need to have a check on both Congress and the President -- so they deliberately created the Supreme Court, which did not exist under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Darn smart people, or maybe just suspicious believers in the mantra of trust-but-verify.