President Trump believes that the United States’ checks and balances system is bad for the country because it limits executive power and creates barriers to the passage of legislation or the veto of previous bills, among other things. The Constitution included a checks and balances system to balance the power between the branches of government and prevent executive, judicial, or legislative overreach. President Donald J. Trump has stated that this system is “a very rough system. It’s really a bad thing for the country. It's an archaic system … the rules of the House and the Senate.” Although gridlock, undemocratic ideologies, and partisanship have been portrayed as problems because of the opinions of the public and the President, these ‘problems’ are actually intentional and beneficial to the government. Although this system has withstood the test of time and is still currently working despite public criticism, it is far from perfect and there are some characteristics that could be changed to ensure that the government is more efficient.
History shows that people in power often grow too bold and overreach. This leads to the power becoming concentrated into a single person, or group (Beckett 638). The framers opposed a system where all authority could be concentrated into a single branch because of such examples from history. The Founding Fathers understood the oppressive nature of governments, so they divided the power between the three branches of government and between the national and state governments (Beckett 639). This system was what the framers of the Constitution believed to be the best solution to prevent tyranny. After splitting the authority within the Constitution to specific groups, they balanced the pieces against each other (Beckett 639). By forcing the branches to check each other, it prevents the collapse of the government due to uncontrolled ambitions (Beckett 639).
The checks and balances system consists of three branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Legislative Branch establishes the law, the Executive Branch executes the law, and the Judicial Branch interprets the law. The goals of this system were to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful, to protect the minority from the majority, and to force the branches to cooperate ("Checks and Balances – Boundless”). The Legislative Branch checks on the Executive and Judicial Branches. The legislative power is invested in Congress, which means that they have the authority to impeach to President, the power to declare war, and they select the President and Vice President if there is no majority of electoral votes (Mount). The Legislative Branch balances the Judicial Branch by initiating constitutional amendments, setting the jurisdiction of courts, and approving federal judges (Mount). The Executive Branch has some control over the Judicial and Legislative Branch. With respect to the Legislative Branch, the Executive branch has the authority to veto legislation, recess appointments, and force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment (Mount). With respect to the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch also has the power to appoint judges and pardon (Mount). The Judicial Branch has the power of judicial review, which means they get to decide the meaning of the potential legislation, they also get to determine if it is unconstitutional or not (Mount).
A potential problem for President Trump is deadlock, an unavoidable part of the checks and balances system. Deadlock usually occurs because some special constitutional grant of authority for one branch says “no” to some of the specific decisions of the other branches (“Checks and balances”). For example, the President and Congress can agree on passing a law, but if the federal judiciary declares it to be unconstitutional, the courts will refuse to treat the law as valid or enforceable (“Checks and balances”). This results in deadlock because the Judicial Branch is responsible for deciding whether or not the law is constitutional, which determines the enforcement of the legislation. Another example shows that Congress is a major factor in denying or confirming the aid for foreign and military policy. The President has general supervision over foreign and military policy, but his treaties must be ratified by the Senate before they enter into force, and only Congress can appropriate money to pay for things, such as the raising of an army or the dispensing of foreign aid (“Checks and balances”). If the House and Senate do not agree in allocating funds for the said policy, then Congress will not distribute the funds.
Another criticism of the system is that some claim that it is undemocratic. This system, supposedly, places barriers to the absolute power of the majority to determine public policy by forcing majorities to bargain with minorities that have managed to gain disproportionate influence on a certain branch (“Checks and Balances”). The checks and balances system was created to include the minority in the processes of government and to prevent the majority from absorbing all the power. To certain people, the minority often has too big of a role in the government. Within a truly democratic system, legislation that is put in place is that which is supported by the majority. It is believed that the minority has too much power in the American system, and that prevents certain things from passing that the majority has agreed upon. It is argued that this hurts the majority in the long run.
Additionally, the checks and balances system leads to political polarization. This polarization is seen among the members of government, but it does not necessarily reflect a broader polarization in the public. “The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views.. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want (Suh).” The public simply wants their representatives to pass more legislation because people often associate the amount of legislation passed with how successful Congress is. Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill are now even further apart from one another than at any point in modern history, which contributes to the polarization of each party (Suh). Due to the fact that the partisanship has deepened for both parties, it is now extremely difficult to get anything done. There is an increase in government officials who have a negative view of the opposing party, and today, many go so far as to say that the opposing party’s policies threaten the nation’s well-being (Suh). The unwillingness to compromise and the negative view of the other party also contributes to gridlock, which leads to the barriers that come with passing legislation. With no actual reasoning behind the unwillingness to compromise besides the fact that they simply do not like the opposing party, it makes gridlock all the more intense.
However, the checks and balances system is still working centuries after its development. The creation of different branches prevents the accumulation of power in any one branch and forces the goals of those in government to be modest (Beckett 640). Gridlock is inherent in this system, but there is no way to avoid such an issue. Different people with different ideologies will surely come to disagreements. “Two branches of government must cooperate before laws destructive of liberty can be enacted, and two branches of government must cooperate in the enforcement of the law. (Beckett 640).” If gridlock did not derive from the system, foolish and unconstitutional legislation would be passed without question.
The belief that checks and balances are undemocratic could be argued against using the Trump healthcare bill, which the House failed to pass in its first form, as an example. The opposition to the healthcare bill from journalists, NGOs, companies and millions of protesters, what could currently be considered the “minority”, was inconvenient and contributed to this this legislation not passing initially. This proves that America’s constitutional checks and balances appear to be holding up better than many feared (“America’s system of checks and balances seems to be working”). The undemocratic characteristic of this system is necessary because the minority is needed to ensure that the majority does not simply absorb all the power and pass legislation that would only benefit them. Even if the healthcare bill were to be passed by the House, it would have to undergo heavy revisions in the Senate, if it passes the Senate at all. This would create a more modest change in the overall system, showing that legislation leans more towards moderate views to be viable and not hurt the interest of the minority.
Polarization may cause the inefficiency of the checks and balances system, but it might have positive impacts as well. The differences between Democrats and Republicans are much clearer now than they were 40 or 50 years ago, which makes it much easier for voters to choose candidates based on their policy preferences (Abramowitz). Evidence from recent elections indicates partisan polarization has led to increased levels of interest and participation among the public (Abramowitz). Polarization among candidates allows for more transparency between themselves and the public. The blame nothing getting done in government can be shifted from polarization to anti-majoritarian rules, such as the Senate filibuster that allow a minority to block the will of the majority (Abramowitz). It is not necessarily polarization that is preventing legislation from being passed, but the rules within Congress itself to ensure that all voices are heard.
A suggestion as to how this government system could be improved would be to eliminate the midterm election. It would be beneficial to the system to eliminate the midterm election because, in reality, the modern election cycle means that the public spends almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election inhibits that same president’s ability to advance that agenda (Schanzer and Sullivan). Midterm elections change the status quo of the system, which prevents the President from doing his job efficiently. Eliminating this election would double the amount of time House members could spend focusing on governing and make them less dependent on their donators (Schanzer and Sullivan). Surveys show that members spend 70% of their time fundraising during an election year (Schanzer and Sullivan). The amount of time spent fundraising to get elected, or even reelected, could be better spent if the midterm elections were eliminated.
Another suggestion to be considered to enhance the efficiency of the government would be to extend the terms of Congress members. In doing so, it would relieve some of the gridlock within the federal government and provide members of Congress with the ability to focus more on governance rather than electioneering (Schanzer and Sullivan). The extension of terms would also give Congress the breathing space to consider longer-term challenges facing the nation that are either too complex or politically toxic to tackle within a two-year election cycle (Schanzer and Sullivan). Congressmen would get a lot more work done if the terms of each member were extended.
President Trump has stated that the system that is currently in place is an old, outdated, and “rough for the country”. He and many other people have this belief due to the fact that gridlock, polarization, and undemocratic values are believed to be consequences of this system. However, gridlock is necessary to prevent the accumulation of power in one branch, polarization increases voter turnout, and these “undemocratic values” are not necessarily undemocratic at all, it simply means that the minority is able to stand up to the majority to ensure that their voices are not drowned out by those in power. Eliminating such “problems” would lead to a corrupt government that is led by one branch that has absorbed all of the power. A couple of recommendations to get better use out of the system that the framers of the Constitution created would be to extend the terms of those in the House and Senate as well as eliminating midterm elections. Other than that, the checks and balances system that is currently in place has withstood the test of time and does not need to be dramatically changed because the Founding Fathers created it to incorporate certain barriers, not as an inconvenience, but to prevent greater problems from arising.
Works Cited
1. Abramowitz, Alan I. "How Polarization Benefits Democracy." The Washington Post. Ed. Steven E. Levingston. WP Company, 28 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 May 2017.
2. "America's System of Checks and Balances Seems to Be Working." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 01 Apr. 2017. Web. 29 May 2017.
3. Beckett, Candace H. "Separation of Powers and Federalism: Their Impact on Individual Liberty and the Functioning of Our Government." William & Mary Law Review 29.3 (1988): 635.
4. "Checks and Balances - Boundless Open Textbook." Boundless. N.p., 08 Aug. 2016. Web. 29 May 2017.
5. Johnson, Paul M. "A Glossary of Political Economy Terms." Checks and Balances: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 May 2017.
6. Mount, Steve. "Constitutional Topic: The Census." USConstitution.net. 3 Jan. 2011. 27 Feb. 2011
7. Schanzer, David, and Jay Sullivan. "Cancel the Midterms." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Nov. 2014. Web. 29 May 2017.
8. Suh, Michael. "Political Polarization in the American Public." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. N.p., 11 June 2014. Web. 29 May 2017.