Definitely.

I like searching the library of Congress's site for the federalist papers when researching about the (surprisingly advanced) political science discussions during the Enlightenment.

Federalist papers 67-70, and 73 make some comparisons between kings and presidents. It's definitely clear that a king is a common example in the political discourse at the time, which makes sense since their system had a king just 10-15 years before.

Yeah, there seems to be a weird reversal in the powers of a king and president. Federalist#73 says that kings fear challenging parliament, so a president who has to face reelection should be even less powerful, but it really seems like the opposite these days. The US president has so much influence over congress. It also seems like they have more of a mandate to override congress because of how involved they are in campaigning. The modern system of prime Ministers where the executive comes from parliament seems to play out better in modern politics.

Off-topic, but Federalist#66 is suuuper unfortunate to read in the modern day. The idea that senators will feel empowered to impeach officials they previously endorsed, just because individuals in the senate might feel like an official has betrayed their trust? The idea that a majority of congress would never act tyranically? Hamilton, what the fuck? I guess the main issue though is that parties have become much stronger than democratic pressure on individual seats in the senate.