American Democracy's Grand Struggle: Checks and Balances
Unprecedented stress on US checks and balances amid Trump's rule unlike any other time in history
In the heart of the USA, there's a grand, labyrinthine system that's kept this nation running for over two centuries - the system of checks and balances. This intricate mechanism is hardwired into the Constitution, establishing a national government comprising three distinct, interconnected branches to maintain a delicate balance of power and prevent any single element from wielding too much authority.
Historian John Carey, an expert on American democracy from Dartmouth College, notes that our nation's founders were well aware of conflicting interests and harbored deep mistrust of centralized authority. This understanding sparked the concept of checks and balances, which has largely kept control from falling into one person's grip. But Carey issues a word of caution: This system relies heavily on individuals exercising their power responsibly and not abusing it to its fullest extent.
A showdown over Jefferson's snub to Adams
The very first battle testing the checks-and-balances system took place during President John Adams' final days in office. In 1801, Adams made last-minute appointments, only to have his successor, Thomas Jefferson, and Secretary of State James Madison ignore them. William Marbury, an Adams justice of the peace appointee, petitioned the Supreme Court to enforce Adams' decisions.
In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that Marbury's commissions became legitimate with Adams' signature, and as such, Jefferson acted illegally by stashing them away. However, Marshall stopped short of ordering anything. Marbury had sued under a 1789 law that made the Supreme Court the trial court in such disputes. Marshall's opinion shallowed that law because it gave justices more power than the Constitution conferred upon them.
The court's split decision established its role in interpreting congressional acts and striking them down, while overseeing executive branch actions.
Hamilton, Jackson, and the national banks
When President George Washington chartered the First Bank of the United States in 1791, Federalists, led by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, advocated for strong central authority and wanted a national bank that lent money to the government. Anti-Federalists, led by Jefferson and Madison, yearned for less centralization and argued that Congress lacked the authority to charter a bank. But they didn't invite the courts to intervene.
Andrew Jackson, the first populist president, loathed the bank. Believing the bank to cater to the elite, Congress voted in 1832 to extend the charter with provisions to appease Jackson. Despite this, the president vetoed the measure. With no means to override him at the time, Congress fell short, and the bank closed its doors in 1836.
Lincoln and due process
President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, allowing federal authorities to apprehend and hold people without granting due process. Though Lincoln believed his actions may not have been "strictly legal," they were essential to preserving the Union. The Supreme Court approved Lincoln's claims in a 1862 case, arguing that the president's wartime powers were inherent, not explicitly detailed by the Constitution or Congress.
Johnson versus Congress
After the Civil War, "Radical Republicans" in Congress aimed to punish states that had seceded and to elevate formerly enslaved people. Anderson Johnson, a Tennesseean president, disagreed with their approach, favoring leniency towards Confederates and harsh treatment towards formerly enslaved people. Congress, exercising its power of the purse, established the Freedmen's Bureau to aid newly freed African Americans. Johnson, on the other hand, wielded his pardon power to repatriate former Confederates and curb Freedmen's Bureau authority.
Spoils system and civil service
For over a century, federal positions were primarily political appointments that shifted with every presidential transition. In 1883, Congress introduced the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, initiating changes to some posts being filled through evaluations rather than political favor. Over time, efforts expanded to build the civil service system that Donald Trump currently seeks to dismantle, transforming civil servants into political appointees or at-will workers that can be easily dismissed.
Wilson and the League of Nations
Following World War I, the Treaty of Versailles called for an international body to unite nations and prevent future conflicts. President Woodrow Wilson advocated for the League of Nations, but Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Republican Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, presented the treaty with amendments to limit the League of Nations' influence. Wilson disagreed with these amendments, and the Senate failed to ratify the treaty and join the League. This move led to the U.S. playing a significant role in establishing the United Nations and the NATO alliance after World War II.
FDR and court packing
In response to the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched ambitious federal programs and aggressive regulatory actions, much of which was approved by Democratic majorities in Congress. A conservative Supreme Court struck down some of the New Deal legislation as beyond the scope of congressional power. Roosevelt responded with a plan to expand the court and pressure aging justices to retire, a move critics called a "court-packing scheme." Ultimately, neither the Supreme Court nor Congress took Roosevelt's plan seriously.
Presidential term limits
Roosevelt defied the unwritten rule, established by George Washington, that a president should not serve more than two terms. Despite his third and fourth terms during World War II, a bipartisan coalition later pushed the 22nd Amendment, which limited presidents to being elected twice. Trump, against the constitutional restriction, has openly discussed pursuing a third term.
Nixon and Watergate
The Washington Post and other media exposed ties between President Richard Nixon's associates and a break-in at Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 campaign. The scandal eventually led to congressional hearings, court cases, and impeachment proceedings. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Nixon in his claim that executive privilege allowed him to shelter potential evidence of his and his aides' roles in the cover-up. In the end, Nixon resigned in the face of looming impeachment proceedings.
Leaving Vietnam
Presidents from John F. Kennedy to Nixon escalated U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia during the Cold War. However, Congress never formally declared war in Vietnam. An agreement reached under Nixon in 1973 ended official American military involvement, but total U.S. withdrawal was not completed until more than two years later – a period during which Congress reduced funding for South Vietnam's democratic government.
The Affordable Care Act
In 2010, a Democratic-controlled Congress heavily revised the nation's health insurance system with the Affordable Care Act. The law tried, in part, to compel states to expand Medicaid, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Congress and President Obama could not coerce states to expand the program by withholding other federal money already allocated to states by prior federal law. To date, Republicans, even when holding both the White House and the Capitol, have been unable to repeal the Act.
With checks and balances challenged and refined throughout history, the system has remained the cornerstone of American democracy, maintaining a delicate equilibrium by limiting each branch's authority and promoting accountability.
In the face of past presidential overreach, such as Roosevelt defying the two-term limitation and Nixon obstructing justice during Watergate, the system of checks and balances has held constant, curtailing executive power and fostering accountability. Despite Trump's contemplation of a third term, the 22nd Amendment, a product of this foundational principle, serves as a barrier.
Moreover, the dispute over Marbury's justice of the peace appointment during John Adams' tenure demonstrated the Supreme Court's power in interpreting congressional acts and striking them down, while overseeing executive branch actions. This division of power prevented Adams from unlawfully maintaining his influence beyond his term.
In response to Wilson's championing of the League of Nations, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee presented amendments that effectively undermined the organization's purpose. The failure to ratify the treaty showed the checks and balances system at work, with the legislative branch checking the executive's international policy-making.
Similarly, the Affordable Care Act, introduced during Obama's presidency, overhauled the nation's health insurance system. However, the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on Medicaid expansion highlighted the limits of presidential and congressional power, reaffirming the system's role in balancing governmental authority.
Understanding immigration laws, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War without explicit constitutional or congressional authorization. Yet, the Supreme Court upheld his actions as necessary for preserving the Union, displaying the system's ability to adapt and respond to unprecedented circumstances.
California's proactive approach towards environmental issues, contrasts with Trump's administration's general-news stance on war-and-conflicts and policy-and-legislation related to climate change. This discrepancy showcases the checks and balances system in action, as states can counterbalance federal inaction or positions on certain issues.
General distrust of central authority was a cornerstone of the system of checks and balances from its inception. The founders thoughtfully established a government that would mitigate potential abuses of power and create a system that thoughtfully balances the interests of the people, states, and the federal government.
History serves as a testament to the enduring importance of checks and balances in American democracy. The system, while fluid and adaptable, ensures that power remains distributed, accountable, and compassionate, as exemplified recently in healthcare policies and environmental regulations.
