Prof.Lessig, what strikes me reading this is how old this behaviour is. The architectural constraints (checks and balances, separated powers etc ) only work when the people inside the system have a reason to enforce them. The moment an entire party decides loyalty to one person outweighs institutional self-interest, the architecture reverts to what it always was underneath -> words on paper (Madison?) The exceptions you name, Massie, Paul almost prove this right? The system was designed assuming most actors would defend their institutional turf. It wasn't designed to function when courage is the exception rather than the default.