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

[Nichlemn]

A lot of people like to play up "checks and balances" as being a great part of the US political system. But surely there can be such a thing as too much. I doubt anyone would support say, unanimity rule, or six chambers of a legislature.

As the states and federal system tend to be similar (most being bicameral with a veto that can be overruled by a 2/3 majority) I've lumped them together.

[Franzl]

Depends. There certainly are too many hurdles in the legislative process. Even disregarding the filibuster, which makes it a lot worse, the system isn't easy to navigate even with a legislative majority.

In other areas, in particular certain fields of executive power, I feel there isn't enough outside control.

[SWE]

Not nearly enough checks on the executive and judicial branches, and way too many on the legislative branch

[H. Ross Peron]

Not nearly enough checks on the executive and judicial branches, and way too many on the legislative branch

[Bandit3 the Worker]

There aren't enough. The legislative branch runs roughshod over everything else. The executive branch has become virtually powerless of late.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes and no. The wrong types really. On the one hand, you have SCOTUS stealing elections for Bush and striking down campaign finance laws that 80% of Americans support. On the other hand, 77 Senators voted to allow Bush to warmonger in Iraq.

[Mordecai]

The threat of a filibuster (instead of a talking filibuster) should go. Other than that, the system is pretty good. The main thing wrong with the House is gerrymandering and that's an issue that resides with the state legislatures. However, I do think that a debt ceiling increase should be tied to congressional budgets and appropriations so you're not tempting fate with stupidity.

One of the double-edged swords of a parliament is that the head of government basically always has the votes needed to get its legislation passed in the lower house and the only thing stopping it is the upper house, because the head of state is usually only a ceremonial figure who rubber stamps whatever the government passes. So when you have good governments (Hawke, Keating) they're really good and when you have terrible governments (Howard, Abbott) they're really terrible.

Just imagine the kind of damage the Gingrich revolution or the Tea Party could do if the political agenda was determined by them in the House, and the only thing stopping them was Harry Reid and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats.

[ElectionsGuy]

There aren't enough. The legislative branch runs roughshod over everything else. The executive branch has become virtually powerless of late.

Because republicans are able to get so much down and just run rough shot over President Obama.

If only I lived in your land where that premise existed.

But I should add that I agree with this to an extent:

Not nearly enough checks on the executive and judicial branches, and way too many on the legislative branch

[TDAS04]

Not nearly enough checks on the executive and judicial branches, and way too many on the legislative branch

Mostly this.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Where do people get the idea that the poor, poor, poor widdle legislative branch is so oppressed?

[TDAS04]

Where do people get the idea that the poor, poor, poor widdle legislative branch is so oppressed?

It's more difficult for Congress to act coherently than it is for the President or the judiciary.  Congress itself is divided in to two separate chambers, and the Senate requires more than a majority to act due to the filibuster.

The President is able to be decisive, because not only is he one person, he can bypass Congress often.  Not that that's always bad, since emergencies may require swift action.

As for the courts, SCOTUS can invalidate laws with a simple majority.

I support checks and balances, but maybe it should be easier for Congress to do things.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Every time Obama tries to do anything, Congress runs its mouth and shouts him down.

[SteveRogers]

No. Most of the limits on efficiency in the legislative branch have nothing to do with constitutional checks and balances and are purely the result of internal rules that congress has imposed on itself. The most obvious example is the filibuster.

[politicallefty]

Yes. I wouldn't remove all checks between the legislative and executive branches, but I'd at least remove one. Ideally, I'd prefer the US adopt a parliamentary system with the executive drawn from and accountable to the House. That would leave the Senate as it is. Or, less preferably, the Senate is abolished, leaving the House and Presidency as they are.

Just imagine the kind of damage the Gingrich revolution or the Tea Party could do if the political agenda was determined by them in the House, and the only thing stopping them was Harry Reid and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats.

I don't think that's such a bad thing. Someone like Gingrich may not have come to power if the US were under a parliamentary system. If he did, he would have ultimately been held accountable for his actions. It's one thing to hold a position, but it's quite another to actually enact it.

[TDAS04]

Congress is way too paralyzed to do anything.  Not only is it divided into two chambers.  Not only can the President veto legislation.  But majorities in both houses, even with presidential support, are often not enough to do anything, due to the filibusters in the Senate.

I do believe in checks and balances, as I believe that any power should be limited, but the US system goes too far when it comes to the structure of the Legislative Branch.  Laws are still sometimes passed, but if a bad law manages to get through in an exceptional instance, than it will be a long time before the government manages to repeal it, if the vast majority support repeal.

[Mordecai]

Just imagine the kind of damage the Gingrich revolution or the Tea Party could do if the political agenda was determined by them in the House, and the only thing stopping them was Harry Reid and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats.

I don't think that's such a bad thing. Someone like Gingrich may not have come to power if the US were under a parliamentary system. If he did, he would have ultimately been held accountable for his actions. It's one thing to hold a position, but it's quite another to actually enact it.

Are you sure? If it was Prime Minister Reagan he probably could have held power till the day he died, with no term limits and only popular support from the caucus required to stay in power. Even if they were to lose the next election, they have that power in the mean time to push their agenda. Our Prime Minister right now is slashing education funding, pawning off public assets, dismantling environmental protection laws, dismantling hate crime laws, reinstating knights and dames, violating Indonesian sovereignty, etc. etc. At least with your Republican House you have Obama's veto.

I agree with the accountability argument, but it's also dependent on having an Opposition that is cohesive and well-organized. I guess I should explain that our Labor Party has a really terrible time with being organized and supporting the leader. It's the one thing that the conservatives know how to do well, fall in line behind the leader as they all go like lemmings off the cliff.

There's another thing I forgot to mention, which is that in Australia we have a federal government agency that does the redistricting, which works pretty well. I truly don't believe a federal parliament could work in the United States without a federal agency doing the redistricting.

[muon2]

There's another thing I forgot to mention, which is that in Australia we have a federal government agency that does the redistricting, which works pretty well. I truly don't believe a federal parliament could work in the United States without a federal agency doing the redistricting.

The drawing of congressional districts is not the exclusive province of the state legislatures. Congress could enact a law setting up a national redistricting commission with its own guidelines. From Art I sect 4 of the US Constitution (emphasis added):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1967 Congress used this power to require all districts to be single member.

[Mordecai]

There's another thing I forgot to mention, which is that in Australia we have a federal government agency that does the redistricting, which works pretty well. I truly don't believe a federal parliament could work in the United States without a federal agency doing the redistricting.

The drawing of congressional districts is not the exclusive province of the state legislatures. Congress could enact a law setting up a national redistricting commission with its own guidelines. From Art I sect 4 of the US Constitution (emphasis added):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1967 Congress used this power to require all districts to be single member.

I didn't know about that. It's a shame that it's not used.

[Mr. Morden]

Just imagine the kind of damage the Gingrich revolution or the Tea Party could do if the political agenda was determined by them in the House, and the only thing stopping them was Harry Reid and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats.

I don't think that's such a bad thing. Someone like Gingrich may not have come to power if the US were under a parliamentary system. If he did, he would have ultimately been held accountable for his actions. It's one thing to hold a position, but it's quite another to actually enact it.

Are you sure? If it was Prime Minister Reagan he probably could have held power till the day he died, with no term limits and only popular support from the caucus required to stay in power. Even if they were to lose the next election, they have that power in the mean time to push their agenda. Our Prime Minister right now is slashing education funding, pawning off public assets, dismantling environmental protection laws, dismantling hate crime laws, reinstating knights and dames, violating Indonesian sovereignty, etc. etc. At least with your Republican House you have Obama's veto.

Reagan probably wouldn't have been "Reagan" under a parliamentary system.  If the US had the Australian constitutional system, then, for example, a Democratic parliamentary majority probably would have enacted universal health insurance in the 1960s or 70s, and we'd still have it today.

What I'm getting at is that since the Democrats are the party that's more interested in activist government on economic issues, their agenda suffers more in a system in which there are many veto points.  The American constitutional order is "conservative" in the sense that it tends to conserve the status quo.  Big social programs are hard to pass.  So if the USA had a parliamentary system, then I imagine that the political spectrum would be shifted a bit to the left of where it is now, at least on economic issues.

Of course, there are all sorts of other confounding issues, like the fact that individual members of Congress act as free agents in a way that doesn't happen in most parliamentary systems, where things are run in a much more top down manner.  Legislative power is incredibly diffuse in the US.

[muon2]

Reagan probably wouldn't have been "Reagan" under a parliamentary system.  If the US had the Australian constitutional system, then, for example, a Democratic parliamentary majority probably would have enacted universal health insurance in the 1960s or 70s, and we'd still have it today.

What I'm getting at is that since the Democrats are the party that's more interested in activist government on economic issues, their agenda suffers more in a system in which there are many veto points.  The American constitutional order is "conservative" in the sense that it tends to conserve the status quo.  Big social programs are hard to pass.  So if the USA had a parliamentary system, then I imagine that the political spectrum would be shifted a bit to the left of where it is now, at least on economic issues.

Of course, there are all sorts of other confounding issues, like the fact that individual members of Congress act as free agents in a way that doesn't happen in most parliamentary systems, where things are run in a much more top down manner.  Legislative power is incredibly diffuse in the US.

I think you are sensing a fundamental outcome of the American Revolution. A major point of contention was the top-down control and ease by which regulations could be imposed on the colonies by British government. Their constitutional solution was a diffusion of power with significant checks on power exerted from any one branch.

[politicallefty]

I think you are sensing a fundamental outcome of the American Revolution. A major point of contention was the top-down control and ease by which regulations could be imposed on the colonies by British government. Their constitutional solution was a diffusion of power with significant checks on power exerted from any one branch.

I don't think the original constitutional setup was all that different from the British system at the time. The House of Representatives is and remains analogous to the House of Commons. The Senate was effectively a more republican version of the House of Lords. And I think the original intent of the presidential veto was to be an extraordinary check on Congress, just as withholding Royal Assent had become a rarity in the UK. The difference between the US and the UK over the years has been that the US has been restrained by the written word, while the UK has been free to evolve its system. (That's also not to mention the difference between the federal system in the US versus the unitary system in the UK.)

[Tieteobserver]

No, there aren't. Though no political system is perfect, even the American one, its not hard to see that America has been able for the last 2 1/4 centuries to keep, if not total, near stability. Its really remarkable how stable and successful the American system is.

It is, however, under federalist fire from BOTH parties, since the very early days of the Republic.

[Never]

No, there aren't. Though no political system is perfect, even the American one, its not hard to see that America has been able for the last 2 1/4 centuries to keep, if not total, near stability. Its really remarkable how stable and successful the American system is.

It is, however, under federalist fire from BOTH parties, since the very early days of the Republic.

For the most part, I agree. America has proven herself to be resilient, and I think that largely has to do with how power is spread throughout the United States government, and that each branch is meant to hold the other two accountable.

If anything, I think that there should be additional legislative checks on the judicial and executive branches. If the Supreme Court makes a particularly disastrous ruling that potentially ignores the content of the Constitution, a 2/3 to 3/4 majority of both houses of Congress should be allowed to override the ruling. Furthermore, there should be a way for Congress to use a simple majority in the House and Senate to invalidate administrative decisions by unelected bureaucracies in the executive branch. It is clear that power should rest in those who are elected by the people, not by faceless entities that are not accountable to the voters.

[Maxwell]

There are never enough checks and balances.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Definitely mixed.  Too many checks and balances on the legislative branch, not enough on the judicial and executive, and certainly not enough on military power and outside factors.