United States Government: A Balancing Act - Essay Example

United s Government: A Balancing Act The federal government of the United s, as d in its Constitution, is given by its people certain rights, functions and responsibilities to effectively govern the nation "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for [the nation] and [its] Posterity" (US Constitution, Preamble). A salient feature of this government is the separation of its powers into three equal branches, particularly the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary, which has been touted as essential in ensuring US democracy. Hence, this essay aims to shed light on these issues and illustrate how the aforementioned divisions affect the manner the country is governed, with particular regard to balancing the rights and responsibilities of the branches of government as well as between the federal and state government. The US Constitution has adopted, as a defining aspect of US government, the doctrine of separation of powers. What then, is the rationale of our forefathers for adopting this doctrine This doctrine, as argued by Baron de Montesquieu (1748, p. 5) is a necessary component of democratic nations because "[t]here can be no liberty where the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are under one person or body of persons because the result is arbitrary despotism (tyranny)." In this respect, it is only logical for our forefathers to adopt this doctrine coming out of a civil war where independence was achieved from a colonial government characterized by corruption and oppression of its people. This created a need to protect the nation from the possible abuses that come about from a government's monopoly in the use of power. Ironically, as James Madison (1788b) writes, "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Thus, dividing the powers of the government into three branches serves as a remedy to prevent oppression brought about by the monopoly of power, characteristic of the British colonial government. It is a tool to ensure that the ideals of democracy, which the nation stands strongly for, are guaranteed through limiting their power, creating a limited constitutional government. Hence, given that is imperative to ensure the ideals of democracy and safeguard against oppression, how does the doctrine affect the interaction between the three separate branches A concept that cannot be separated from the doctrine of separation of powers is that of checks and balances. In this respect, Madison (1788a) writes that the three branches "should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other." Thus, our forefathers were careful not to make the separation of powers absolute by ensuring that each branch can serve as a control for the other. This concept of checks and balances, therefore define the manner that the three branches will interact. Article 1 of the Constitution, for example, states that "the House of Representatives; shall have the sole power of Impeachment" (US Constitution, Art. 1 2). In this regard, the Congress serves as a control for both the executive and judiciary branch officials against corruption and other offenses through impeachment. In addition, it also serves as a control for the Executive through the "power of the purse" by virtue of the Constitution, which states that the Congress shall "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (US Constitution, Art. 1 8). The executive, on the other hand, by virtue its veto power can serve as a check for the Congress in ensuring sound legislation (US Constitution, Art. 1 7). In addition to its veto power, the Executive is given the power to "grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment" (US Constitution, Art. II 2). The Judicial branch, on the other hand, as stated in the Constitution serves as a control for the other two branches by virtue of its judicial review, which states: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... (US Constitution, Art. III 1-2). Through this interaction, one can understand the dynamic between the three branches of government, such that by serving as checks and balance for each other, and sharing the powers and responsibilities of government, our forefathers have succeeded in constructing a model of governance that is secured from both the abuses of those in power, as well as the abuses of those sharing power - the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In this respect, however, has the separation of powers doctrine effectively achieved its goal of a balanced government While the doctrine of separation of powers was imperative to the nation at the time that the Constitution was framed, changes in the ideals surrounding American society, has created numerous issues surrounding the doctrine in today's society. On one hand, it is questionable whether the branches of government are truly equal given that the Legislative branch's power, as recognized by James Madison, should necessarily be given a stronger counterbalancing mechanism to defend from the controls of the other branches. He writes, "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense the legislative authority necessarily predominates" (Madison, 1788b). In this regard, one can question whether the separation of powers and checks and balances can properly balance the government given this initial bias. Furthermore, another issue that arises in the context of the separation of powers is its effectiveness in improving governance and the operation of the government as a whole, particularly with regard to its efficiency. As stated in Myers v. United States, (1924) 264 US 95, "the doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency, but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power" (Myers v. United States, 1924). As a result, efficiency in decision-making was sacrificed in the government. As President Woodrow Wilson claims with regard to the presidency, the separation of powers have rendered some Presidents to be too cautious of the checks and balance mechanism of the other branches, such that they "have deliberately held themselves off from using the full power they might legitimately have used, because of conscientious scruples, because they were more theorists than statesmen" (Wilson, 2001). Furthermore, it also renders the question of a judicial review's applicability in resolving cases with regard to the internal operation of the Executive. As Sunstein (1988) remarks, "a form of judicial skepticism about both government regulation and court entanglement in executive functions" exists, such that "in the belief that administrative regulation, grounded as it is in technocratic expertise and political accountability, is incompatible with judicial oversight" (pp. 1460-1). Aside from these issues, the power of the national government is also limited by the separation between the federal and state governments. During the early days of the Union, the debate surrounding advocates of a strong federal state as opposed to those who advocate state rights revolve around the constitutionality of state sovereignty vis--vis the supremacy of the federal government. As resolved by the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 17 US 316 the laws of the federal government takes precedence over the laws of the separate states. However, given the increasing complexity of the issues of governance surrounding both the federal government and the states, the need to devolve more federal powers, as well as decentralize government functions, has become central to the debate. However, another issue that arises from this relationship is the clout that the federal government has on state governments, where due to the budgetary powers of the federal government, state governments sometimes have to curb, making the checks and balance mechanism at this level futile. The United States government is therefore a balancing act - between the branches of government, and between the federal and state governments. The need to balance these branches of government is premised on the need to maintain democratic ideals, as well as ensure that liberties are not encroached upon by the governing power. As a result, goals of efficiency are sometimes sacrificed to achieve such. However, in today's age, it is imperative to re-assess these principles to ensure that the US government is one of statesmen, and not theorists, to ensure that the good of the nation is always prioritized. References Madison, J. (1788). These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control over Each Other. The Federalist No. 48. [available online] http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Federalist/fed48.htm; accessed 12 November 2005. Madison, J. (1788). The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances between the Different Departments. The Federalist No. 51. [available online] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm; accessed 12 November 2005. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 17 US 316 Myers v. United States, (1924) 264 US 95 Montesquieu, B (1748). The Spirit of the Laws. Trans. Thomas Nugent. Ed. Jennifer Brainard London: J. Nourse, 2003. Sunstein, C. R. (1988) Standing and the Privatization of Public Law. Columbia Law Review, 88(6) pp. 1460-1. See also Sprigman, CJ. (1992). Standing on Firmer Ground-Separation of Powers and Deference to Congressional Findings in the Standings Analysis. University of Chicago Law Review, 59(4). Wilson, W. (2001). Constitutional Government In The United States III. [available online] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.aspdocument=796; accessed 12 November 2005. Read More