Are there too many "checks and balances" in the US political system?

[angus]

There is lots of baggage there, and I agree with Snowstalker's point in the abstract. 

Obviously the window has long-since closed on the temporal epoch during which we might have had a decent 20th century constitutional convention, so I would not support scratching it just now.  Still, I agree with the sentiment.  Especially the part about the lege not having enough authority.  Even the constitution which he wants to burn gave the lege more power than the other two branches.  All that check'n'balance stuff came up later.

[angus]

I think the ones stipulated in the constitution are reasonable:  The President has the power to veto laws passed by the Congress.  He also submits the Federal Budget to the House of Representatives and appoints federal officials, who carry out and enforce laws. 

The newer ones are more interesting.  The War Powers Act was intended by the congress that passed it as a means of checking presidential warmaking power, but it has had the opposite effect.  Now, a president can realistically make war for three months without any congressional say.  Moreover, there's no teeth:  it doesn't specify what congress can do if the president refuses to comply with the act.  (Presumably they could suspend all funds for such troops and override a presidential veto.)  Earlier this year John McCain and Tim Kaine introduced a bill that would repeal and replace it with a more limiting law, but it seems not to have any traction. 

There are also some bizarre executive orders.  Reagan and Clinton used the stroke of a pen to peel back layers of legislation that they felt was hampering business.  No doubt this contributed to the Credit Crunch of 2008 and its resulting recession. 

The NSA, ostensibly a part of the executive branch, has grown a will of its own thanks to George W. Bush.  Warrantless surveillance became the norm in the early part of this century.  Edward Snowden has taken refuge in Russia, of all places, because he believes (quite rightly) that he won't get a fair trial in the United States.  Federal prosecutors (also part of the executive branch) have convinced the court justices (that their bosses appointed) that the value of his information to the public is irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible as evidence in court.  They have also convinced the court that the jury should not be able to hear how there's no demonstrable harm to the United States in releasing the information he collected. 

Obama has used a very aggressive campaign of executive orders in order to hamstring congress.  The campaign was called "We Can't Wait."  How very appropriate since he was marketing it to a society which is impatient and has a very short attention span.   

We haven't even begun to investigate the checks imposed on the legislators by themselves.  The partisan brinkmanship run amok is crippling the economy.  Government shutdowns, or threats thereto, are the new norm.  Moreover, the president is constitutionally sworn to "faithfully execute" the law, but if he enforces the debt ceiling, established by one law, he cannot meet obligations that other laws command him to fulfill. 

We seem to have devolved in this regard.  There were legitimate checks and balances in the US Constitution.  Not too many.  Maybe even too few, but fortunately judicial review was established in Marbury vs. Madison.  It was just right for a long time.  Then, beginning with Lincoln and continuing through Obama, more and more checks of the executive branch on the other branches evolved, and were accepted by the congress and the people.  So much so that nowadays citizens aren't even surprised when presidents promise "No new taxes!" (as if they have the authority to deliver) and we have a bold and heroic citizen who is a refugee (in Russia!) because he is unable to receive a fair trial in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. 

Having said all that, I should also say that I actually didn't vote in the poll or even view its results.  I'm not sure whether to interpret the question with regard to what the constitution explicitly states, or with regards to how the system has evolved.  Or even what constitutes a check on power anymore, given the imperial nature of the modern U.S. Presidency.

[angus]

I'm not a huge fan of the pardon system

That's one thing I like very much.  Jesus, Buddha, the Navajo, even Ralph Fiennes' character Obersturmführer Amon Goeth from Schindler's List, were all into forgiveness.  It's a decent thing to do, and it represents the antithesis of the arrogance usually displayed by politicians.  We're not a very forgiving people, we Americans, and it shows in ugly ways--even the beautiful word "amnesty" has been turned in to a negatively-charged emotional term by our politicans--but every executive has the chance to leave office with a bit of Gandhi in him.  To pardon folks like Richard Nixon or Roger Clinton or Pol Pot is a decent thing to do.  Even the Tutsi and Hutu peoples are now expected to live with one another.  If Rwandan women (who were raped in front of their children after their husbands and fathers were brutally murdered with sticks and bayonets) have it in them to forgive us our trespasses, then we might be able to find it within ourselves to forgive those who trespass against us.  

[angus]

That's one thing I like very much.  Jesus, Buddha, the Navajo, even Ralph Fiennes' character Obersturmführer Amon Goeth from Schindler's List, were all into forgiveness.  It's a decent thing to do, and it represents the antithesis of the arrogance usually displayed by politicians.  We're not a very forgiving people, we Americans, and it shows in ugly ways--even the beautiful word "amnesty" has been turned in to a negatively-charged emotional term by our politicans--but every executive has the chance to leave office with a bit of Gandhi in him.  To pardon folks like Richard Nixon or Roger Clinton or Pol Pot is a decent thing to do.  Even the Tutsi and Hutu peoples are now expected to live with one another.  If Rwandan women (who were raped in front of their children after their husbands and fathers were brutally murdered with sticks and bayonets) have it in them to forgive us our trespasses, then we might be able to find it within ourselves to forgive those who trespass against us.

I don't disagree with you. However, I think there should be some check on what is currently an absolute executive power. There are many instances where the President does the right thing with respect to overall morality and forgiveness. However, there are also instances where executive clemency has only been granted due to political circumstances. I already mentioned a possible Congressional check above, which is one that gives the President the benefit of the doubt.

You're very Kantian, aren't you?