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

[Deus Naturae]

So many people have said that there are too many checks/balances on the legislative branch, but no one in this thread has brought up a specific one they would get rid of. Are you guys advocating getting rid of the presidential veto?

[Peter the Lefty]

Not enough checks on bureaucracies (specifically the CIA, FBI, and NSA), and other such things which may violate civil liberties.  Far too many on the rest. 

Parliamentarism ftw.

[politicallefty]

So many people have said that there are too many checks/balances on the legislative branch, but no one in this thread has brought up a specific one they would get rid of. Are you guys advocating getting rid of the presidential veto?

I'd prefer a parliamentary system, so that'd obviously entail a stronger legislative branch. Ideally, yes, there would be no executive veto over the legislature. I would prefer an executive that has accountability to the legislature.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I've complained a lot about a corrupt legislative branch having too much power, but you can make the case that the Senate should have the power to veto presidential pardons with a supermajority. I do remember the Bushes abusing their pardon powers quite a bit.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I do remember the Bushes abusing their pardon powers quite a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

[politicallefty]

I'm not opposed to the presidential pardon power as a whole, but I do think there needs to be some form of check on it. Both sides have used it for good, but both sides have abused it as well. A possible check could be something like a Congressional veto, where a majority vote in each House could veto a pardon. In such a case, Congress would have a certain amount of time to issue a veto. If Congress did not act within that time frame, the pardon would go into effect.

[Deus Naturae]

Not enough checks on bureaucracies (specifically the CIA, FBI, and NSA), and other such things which may violate civil liberties.  Far too many on the rest. 

Parliamentarism ftw.

You realize that the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc exist in the first place because they were created by the legislative branch, signed off on and administered by the executive branch, and then upheld by the judicial branch (or would be, if their constitutionality were ever challenged)? Intrusive government agencies are an inevitability with a large, unchecked government.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Too much on the legislative branch (which should be the most important branch by far), not enough on the executive/judicial.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Too much on the legislative branch (which should be the most important branch by far), not enough on the executive/judicial.

The branches are supposed to be coequal. No branch is supposed to have any more power than any other branch.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Too much on the legislative branch (which should be the most important branch by far), not enough on the executive/judicial.

The branches are supposed to be coequal. No branch is supposed to have any more power than any other branch.

Well, I also oppose the U.S. Constitution and support implementing a new one.

[Never]

Too much on the legislative branch (which should be the most important branch by far), not enough on the executive/judicial.

The branches are supposed to be coequal. No branch is supposed to have any more power than any other branch.

Well, I also oppose the U.S. Constitution and support implementing a new one.

[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.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Even the constitution which he wants to burn gave the lege more power than the other two branches.

The Constitution doesn't give it that much power though. If Congress has more power, it's because they gave themselves more power, regardless of what the Constitution says.

[Deus Naturae]

Too much on the legislative branch (which should be the most important branch by far), not enough on the executive/judicial.

Such as...?

[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.

[publicunofficial]

As Ronald Reagan said, legislatures being able to draw their own districts is an obvious oversight by the Founding Fathers.


I'm not a huge fan of the pardon system (It should be used for unfair sentences and to clear the names of those who have been found innocent, not Tom DeLay/Richard Nixon/Roger Clinton), but I don't like any of the proposed fixes to it either.

[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.  

[TNF]

Yes, and most of them exist to protect the privileged position of the upper strata of society.

[politicallefty]

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.

[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?

[Frodo]

This is an even more interesting question five years later....