The Framers didn't exactly plan for Congress to be the strongest branch, but they did expect for it to be the principal political branch, with the other two above the fray. But then again, they really didn't design the Judiciary at all. They beat it out of Philadelphia without really designing the Judicial Branch and simply presumed that the judges would bring law down onto the states--which was the original intent of the Constitution anyway.
What's really objectionable about her is that her understanding of how it all ought to work is so paint-by-numbers. It's all "I don't like the way judges rule, so judges shouldn't have any power." Her real beef is with the rule of law. She's ignoring the fact that the other two branches became as powerful as they did because Congress (and state legislatures, too) became incompetent at dealing with the problems in society.
The imperial presidency arose under successive Roosevelts (long before Dubya desecrated the people's house) because Congress is designed more to obstruct progress than to solve problems. The judiciary evolved to "legislating from the bench" because the laws of the land, written by the legislatures of the land, left schools segregated, prisons overcrowded, pollution unobstructed, and the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution disregarded by powerful private interests.
If Bachmann truly has a biblical view of the law, I assume that means she'd like to let all the rot and moral corruption sink into the land until God sends a plague or the armies of Nebuchadnezzar into punish us for being bad at self government. But probably all that weird phrase means is that she wants people to think God likes her. She's wrong, of course. God certainly loves Michelle Bachmann, but I don't think he likes her.
= new reply since forum marked as read