Have you ever noticed a reference to what party is controlling Congress or which might be in command of the White House? This is a case in point for balance of power between our various branches of government. Normally arguments and deliberations tend to impede the advancement of political sessions to a crawl but in this respect it may actually be a benefit. It provides insight into the issues and tolerates the time necessary for a productive dialog to take place.
In all actuality the Americans people tend to favor these checks and balances as was manifested by the 2010 elections. At the conclusion of the ballot voting results it was shown that the Senate's Democratic majority remained intact however the Republican Party managed to gain about 60 seats in Congress. This imparted a safety zone between Congress and the democratically controlled Senate and White House.
The concept of separation of power is not a novel theory formulated by our founding fathers in the 1700s, but rather a political design which dates back to ancient Greece and was widely employed by the Roman Republic. With this political conception the state was divided into branches, each consisting of their own independent powers as well as their specific areas of responsibility. This bestows the people with a Constitutional tool where no single branch is able to develop more power or become supreme to any of the others. It is this element of separation of power which provides our nation with its current approach to checks and balances.
When fashioning the framework for our constitution, James Madison noted in his Federalist Papers that this separation of power was extremely critical. He construed that those powers provided to the government should and must be monitored to prevent widespread abuse.
If we were to seriously consider modification of our election process to include changing the election intervals to coincide in combination with each other, I feel we would severely downgrade the efficiency of our checks and balances system. By altering our national elections to sanction congress, the senate and the president to be elected every four years, at the same time we would do a grave injustice to our forefathers planning.
I oppose this premise as follows. First, I feel that the effect of such a change upon the checks presented towards our elected official's power would be reduced. As so often happens, when the voting population becomes unhappy with the performance of one political party they will alternately vote the opponents into power. If terms were standardized as suggested above we would see a great turnover in both congress and in the senate as well as in the presidency. In that case, the president's popularity or his unpopular appeal would certainly influence the outcome of the elections. If this were to happen than total power would be provided to one party allowing unlimited enactment of laws or the ability to circumvent the intended legislation at their will. An act such as this would just about eliminate the balance of power in our government.
Secondly, in our current process two senators are elected from each state for a period of 6 years. Since the elections are staggered both senators from a particular state are never elected at the same time. This requirement contributes to our checks and balance but would be ineffective if both senators were elected at the same time. This reasoning being that they would possibly be elected out of anger for the actions of a current administration. We have to remember election of all Republicans or all Democrats is not a useful combination - we must have a mixture to produce effective legislation and progress in a positive manner.
Lastly, since congressmen are elected in two-year intervals, we see a further differentiation in balance here. These differences are vital in order to keep compromising effective and to foster responsiveness towards opinions and doors open for discussion. To modify our present election periods would change the way our government functions because one party would effectively have supreme control over the activities of the government. There would no longer be an opposing view on the issues and corruption would quickly envelope our entire political arena.
To some, it may be considered a benefit that since the election of our Senators and the Presidential elections are currently staggered, a senator would no longer be allowed to run for the higher office and if they lose maintain their previously held seat. I personally feel that if they are that enthusiastic they should go all out anyway - win or lose. Let new blood take their old seat in the Senate should they lose their bid for the presidency but that is merely my personal thoughts. Other than that the only other benefit which I can perceive from such a change would be saving time during the voting process. No longer would we need to visit a polling booth several times to select our representatives but could accomplish the process in one sweep, at the same time as we elect a new Commander-in-Chief. To me this benefit is not sufficient to warrant and justify the disadvantages presented for losing our checks and balances ability.
I can see and predict that we would experience a new host of predicaments when a president might introduce a substandard bill. Since both of our legislative branches would be from the same party he would experience little opposition in passing the bill from either. Not only would this situation be contrary to traditional representations where the president and congress are at odds but would also promote some one-sided laws being enacted which may not necessarily be for the good of all citizens.
Copyright @2012 Joseph Parish
For more information relating to survival visit us at http://www.survival-training.info/
No comments:
Post a Comment