Checks and Balances: A History and an Introspective.

Officially, the United States of America was founded in 1776, with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. But this America was disordered and in the midst of war. The Revolutionary war didn’t even end until 1783. The Articles of Confederation, ratified only 2 years prior, only loosely bound the states together. It was only until 1789, with the ratification of the United States Constitution, that we created the framework of which the political system of this country runs on, the real beginning of the United States of America.
The Constitution provided many things to the new, improved, and stronger federal government. The federal government’s many powers now included greater powers of taxation, regulation of national currency, and supremacy over state laws, among many others. This sudden shift in power became a cause of worry for the framers of the Constitution, so those delegates created a system to limit the possible tyrannical power the country had just fought to escape from. They divided the government into three separate branches, the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative. Each of these branches have different functions in the federal government and have power over each other branch to stop any one branch from consolidating too much power. This system is known as checks and balances.
These checks and balances include the President’s powers to veto congressional legislation and appoint Supreme Court Justices, the Legislative’s powers to confirm said Justices and draft laws, and the Supreme Court’s powers over the President’s executive action and judicial review of congressional laws. Additionally, the Legislative branch is divided into two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives, the former of the two which is responsible for the confirmation of bills and amendments. In theory, each system would work semi-independently from each other, so that tyranny and corruption were far less likely, however nowadays party lines make it harder for these checks and balances to function.
Let me give a small history lesson(as if I wasn’t giving one already). At any time in American history, two parties have dominated the political space. Whether it be Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, Democratic and Whigs, or the Democrats and Republicans that we are familiar with, two parties with different goals have taken up the political real estate of this country. Some outliers include Teddy Roosevelt’s run for a 3rd term, with the Bull-Moose party receiving around 27% of the national vote and 88 electoral votes. A more recent example, Ross Perot of the Reform Party, who garnered about 19% of the popular vote and … 0 electoral votes. Huh, for almost 20% of the popular vote, he gained nothing in what really matters. Since that 1992 election no independent has ever received any sizable margin of the vote on a federal level, only some congressional elections in select districts and states.
Now what does this have to do with checks and balances? With the winner-take-all voting system for all of our government representatives the United States has entered a political gridlock that favors party ideals over the original intent of the government. Decades of rigidity have led to the walls between each branch breaking down. As if the co-mingling of each branch wasn’t enough, our current administration has been testing the limit of powers of the executive branch. Our current president is denying court orders, one of the powers the judicial system is supposed to have over the executive, but what can the judiciary really do to stop him?
The modern day American political system has demonstrably changed from its inception in 1789. Maybe there will be a change one day that echoes the shift from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, only time will tell. But for now, when the government fails to check itself, it is the duty of we the people.