Crisis of Fathers

As of October 28th, 2014, The Economist ends their post-debate regarding whether or not
the American political system is broken. Those agreeing with mentioned thesis, argues that while
the constitution may have served well during its current 227 years, it might no longer be up to
the task. While the checks and balances between different parties in the government are fine on
principle, it does compose difficulties in Congress as deadlocks often occur. This complicates the
ability to govern for the President, as even when its his party controlling Congress, getting
things done proves difficult. Debatably impossible should his party not be in control. A
noticeable amount of commenters also suggest the current two-party system is in need of a major
overhaul. Opposing debaters point out the patterns of the past and The Founding Fathers
intentions remain intact.
On the closing day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, Benjamin
Franklin said: I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such, because I think a
central government is necessary for us I doubt too whether any other Convention we can
obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. To underscore, even one of the Founding
Fathers implied a possible limited timeframe for the Constitution and the three branches to work
as intended. A better understanding of these should help with making out an opinion regarding
todays issues.
At the end of summer, 1787, the appointed delegates finally developed a plan that
established a national government with three branches; Executive, legislative and judicial. The
reasoning for this was that while the government should be strong and fair, it should also protect
individual freedoms and rights and prevent the government from abusing its power. Their idea
suggested that the three branches should level out each others powers by usage of a system
known as checks and balances. By having these, none of the branches have the opportunity to
gain too much influence and power. It was hoped for a balanced and justified government with
the people in its focus.
The first of three branches is the legislative branch. Its primary objective is to write bills
and debate them, figure out pros and cons and eventually vote upon it. As obliged by the
Constitution, this duty is carried out by the Congress. The Congress is divided into the House of
Representatives and the Senate as a bicameral legislature, which means the legislators are

divided into two separate assemblies, houses or chambers. The powers of Congress is wide,
covering tasks such as controlling the federal taxing and spending, it has the right to coin money
and also declare war on other countries. As mentioned earlier, its primary duty is to write and
discuss the cause and effects of bills as well as passing them before its sent to the president for
approval or veto. I two thirds of Congress agree upon the bill, they may override the presidents
veto. They may also rewrite a bill for approval, which is handled by the chamber where it
originated. Thought money bills can only be made in the House, but both houses must approve it
before being passed. Should any votes result in a tie, the vice president, whom also is president
of the Senate, holds the final vote. The last one was made by Richard B. Cheney March 13th,
2008. In addition, any laws passed or considered by the Congress, as well as current ones, may
be declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.
The judicial branch of the government is assigned the duty of interpreting laws passed by
the Congress. It consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. The United States
constitution and laws are a complex web of both vague and sometimes confusing descriptions.
Therefore it is up to the judicial branch to sort these out and decide what is constitutional and
what is not. When the first bill was ratified in 1789, the Judiciary Act, America was divided into
twelve judicial districts, whereas each one contained one court of appeals, one regional district
court and one bankruptcy court. In the lead of those is the highest court in the US. In the
Supreme Court sits the Chief Justice and eight associate justices, which cover the most important
cases and questions about the interpretation and fair application of the Constitution and federal
law. Most legal cases and nearly all criminal cases are trialed by state courts under state laws.
Hence, criminals may only be applied the death penalty in certain states. As a safety net to this,
the system of checks and balances says that any criminal convicted by the courts may be
pardoned by the president. The purposes behind these pardons could vary from a wide range of
reasons. Some more debatable than other, such as the controversial pardon of Richard Nixon by
the current president at the time, Gerald Ford, which conveniently enough was appointed as
Nixons successor by Nixon himself. Still, it is in the presidents power to pardon in case the
judicial branch unfairly or unreasonably convicts someone.
Final corner of the triangle is the executive branch of the US government. It consists of
the president, the vice president and fifteen Cabinet-level executive departments. It is their
responsibility to enforce laws upon the US. The president chooses a running-mate, a vice

president to lighten the workload on various fields and act as a safety net should the president
fall ill or by other means become unable to perform the presidential duty. As Vice President Dan
Quayle once said, If we dont succeed, we run the risk of failure. Putting the comic relief aside,
the Cabinet is a subordinate section of the Executive Office. It is here the vice president and the
fifteen departments reside. They cover a wide range of responsibilities crucial to the nation. One
example is the Department of Defense which has had lots to do since 2001. There is also the
Department of Education and Commerce among others.
The president is also the head of state and commander in chief of the military, but he is
not an universal military singularity as this is where checks by Congress regulate power. The
legislature must approve any budget decisions, treaties and Congress must make declarations of
war. Thus, as the US holds a superpower status as a nation and thereby the president is often
referred to as one of the most powerful persons on Earth, the checks and balances of the
Constitution remains in place to make sure no single unit gains too much control. This has
somewhat been altered in recent times with the increased foreign politics and coverage in media,
as the president may have some increased public authority. Should the president go out of
bounds or appear to be unfit for duty, the legislature may use their power of impeachment to
remove him / her from office. If this happens, Chief Justice of the judiciary sits as the president
of the Senate until the trials are over. Any of the executive orders may be declared
unconstitutional by the judiciary as well.
Circling back to the original thesis, it may be just the slightest easier to understand why
gridlocks occurs now. There is little to no political action that can be done without a secondary
intervention or approval, except for presidential proclamations and executive orders. Not so
surprisingly though, these does not necessarily go by without Vogon bureaucrats interfering
either. While Franklin D. Roosevelts executive order after the Pearl Harbor incident went
through without noticeable objection, Congress could have passed a bill in order to cancel or
change that order in any manner they would see fit. Or the Supreme Court could have declared it
unconstitutional. As President Obama said over this summer, If I sponsor a bill declaring apple
pie American, it might fall victim to partisan parties. While that statement was made in a speech
regarding border politics, it may just as well have been for any other recent issue. Data from
research points out a massive decline in conference agreements. Just between year 1947 and
2000, the average ran about 100 agreements per Congress. The transition between 2001 and 2012

on the other hand, had merely an average of 20 agreements in offer. During the 112th Congress, it
has plummeted even further. Since 2011 and up until 2013 as the most recent data describes, the
average amount of conferences where the parties have come to an agreement barely seven final
agreements made it through the committee. Thus it is fairly understandable that a lot of
concerned citizens voice their frustration and worries through any channel available. Currently,
the United States government often seems powerless to make laws that are of benefit to the
people. Earlier this spring, it became official that believing the current Congress is the worst
ever was the most popular opinion among the electorate, commentarial and academic
community. It should be possible to question why that is.
The United States have further developed responsible parties over the past few decades.
Historically, they are distinguishably more polarized and characteristic of parliamentary
democracies than ever before. This turns the government into much like what could resemble a
chess board, where the politics are pawns only able to make one step at a time, and agreements
can only strike if going diagonally. Regardless, it turns politics almost into a more competitive
nature and the parties may oppose any policies advocated by their opposition in a mirrored
character. This will unavoidably affect decision making as the parties argue in Congress or the
Cabinet. A parliamentary structure works nicely for many countries, but the US government
lacks the structure. To further emphasize that, quoting Evan Bayh from his retirement speech
earlier this year:
For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it shoul.
There is too much partisanship and not enough progress; too much narrow ideology and not
enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the
peoples business is not getting done]
What he seems to imply from further context, while partisanship may not be as explanatory as
the term political warfare may be, according to Sean Theriault, is that the focus has turned too
much on electoral purposes rather than legislative purposes. One of many aspects that is arguably
broken about the American government.
As mentioned previously, the president may have a harder time governing laws when an
opposing party dominates Congress. In other words, the current two-party system between
democrats and republicans is working against itself on so many levels, making Congress in
particular difficult to function properly. Due to an increased availability and usage of media, the

parties run political tactics in the battlefields towards next elections, more concerned about
playing the ideologically most attractive ideas rather than facing imminent issues needing
practical solutions. This circles back to Bayhs statement regarding Congress, and is reflected
repeatedly through acts and treaties the past years. The No Child Left Behind act which President
George W. Bush commissioned for instance. While great on paper, it is terrible in practice. It
has, paradoxically enough, left large portions of students behind. A majority of the population
recognizes this and an educational revolution is slowly brewing for the years to come.
The increased ideological polarization remains as one of the major contributing factors to
the unusually high amount of gridlocks in recent years. Divided party control of government and
increased public attention and reflection towards future elections renders deal-making even so
more challenging as politicians are pressured into setting their foot down even stronger, sticking
to their opinion. Just some of many examples of this are the incidents on immigration reform, tax
reform and climate change debates which took place around 2011-2012. The major factor to
gridlocks occurring at that time was a direct consequence from split party control throughout the
chambers and branches. Naturally, some polarization and debate is surely healthy for decisionmaking, but there is always something defined as too much.
A most significant example of how the modern party-system and the debatably ancient
constitution can halt progress in law-making, is the Newtown incident in early summer, 2013. A
shooting took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which led to President Obamas proposal
to do a criminal background check for any purchase of guns. 91% of Americans supported this,
but the proposal still did not make it through the United States Senate. 91% should be a nobrainer, but taken the history of American constitution into account, it is very sensitive to the
rights of its minorities. The earliest groups of civilization, particularly the rich and paranoid
minority, insisted on separating the executive from legislative, demanding it to require approval
of both houses of Congress as well as the president. This was as a mean to prevent minorities
from being trampled over by the majority. Thus, the second amendment was taken into debate.
The right to keep and bear arms became a hot topic that summer, ultimately leading to the gun
control measure to end in failure.
Debaters of The Economist showed a tendency of several shared opinions. An us versus
them mentality is suggested, parties delaying law-making and intentionally halting progress as
they believe it is better to wait until their party wins the next election. Some argue the American

government is partially broken in its functioning structure, not due to its nature but modern
requirements of it. The common public opinion pictured by the recently concluded debates in
The Economist and recent articles suggests it is no longer the people, but their votes which are in
focus. And naturally, it was impossible for the Founding Fathers to predict the future and take all
of its aspects into account, and thus it should be due time to discuss whether or not the
constitution is up for some attention. Such a proposal may not make it through Congress.
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking
about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
-

President George W. Bush, Aug. 5, 2004

Links

Tie votes
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/VPTies.pdf

Worst Ever Congress

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/25/gridlock-is-bad-thealternative-is-worse/