One issue that I’ve gotten interested in is the President’s discretion not to sign a bill instead of signing or vetoing. Donald Trump did this recently for a housing bill in protest of the Senate’s failure to pass his voting bill.
Why did the Framers give the President this option? Perhaps it’s because he could be ill or traveling and they thought that should not stop legislation. In a sense, this scenario implies legislative supremacy. A bill is a law unless the President acts affirmatively to veto.
Another possibility is that the Framers wanted to give the President the option to abstain and stay above the fray or abstain as a form of protest. Sometimes presidents take advantage of this, most notably President Cleveland with respect to the income tax that the Supreme Court struck down in Pollock.
Why I am interested in this, you might ask? I will lay that out in due course.