Introduction
Maintaining balances between separate governmental branches is a crucial idea for an appropriate distribution of power held by the state. Historically, national leaders have incorporated the methods that ensure the equal allocation of authority to different state agencies into the political system, attempting to enforce the fair use of official power by the individuals involved (Manuel & Cammisa, 2019). In the current age, a prominent pathway that allows controlling the manifestations of authority by distinct governmental branches is the checks and balances system, an approach that is integrated into the United States Constitution (Manuel & Cammisa, 2019).
As such, the prevention of tyranny occurrence, self-regulation, and the support of change are often considered the advantages of the checks and balances system. Nevertheless, such negative aspects of its implementation as the slow governing process and union between two entities may negatively impact the enaction of just governmental processes. The current paper focuses on the positive and negative characteristics of the checks and balances system, offering relevant evidence from reported cases to illustrate the presented claims.
Advantages of the Checks and Balances Strategy
Preventing Usurpation of Power by Minorities or Majorities
The most prominent benefit of the checks and balances implementation is related to the concepts of tyranny and dictatorship. In a unified government where the equal distribution of power between branches or individuals is not managed properly, a group of individuals or a single person might claim the authority to govern the nation. In such scenarios, the person or the group that holds the governmental power typically represents a minority or a majority of the population, thus endorsing the policies that would be advantageous for specific communities (Manuel & Cammisa, 2019).
However, when the authority for introducing, approving, and enacting legislation is distributed between separate entities, the abuse of power becomes primarily impossible (Astrada, 2017). In addition, as each of the branches becomes capable of controlling how the given capacity is used by the other agency, the possibility of authority usurpation further diminishes.
The Texas v. Johnson case perfectly exemplifies the principle of separation and control, demonstrating how wrongful conviction by state authorities can be reversed by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court prohibited the Texas legislative branch’s law that supported a conviction that contradicted the First Amendment (United States Courts, n.d.). Therefore, the Supreme Court maintained the balance of power between the legislative and the judicial agencies, as well as removed the legislation that could cause negative consequences. From this perspective, one of the governmental branches cannot hold universal power in the checks and balances system and will always be regulated by other state bodies, promoting equal allocation of authority.
Promoting Governmental Self-Regulation
Given the separation of authority between the state entities, the government self-regulation tendency becomes more evident after the implementation of the checks and balances system. In this approach, the official branches are forced to compete with each other in an attempt to represent the dominant majority in a state body, claiming additional power (Zabavska, 2018). However, such opposition is also considered a positive aspect of the discussed structure, as it forces minority groups to carefully assess the opponents to diminish their potential and restrict them from attaining extra power (Manuel & Cammisa, 2019).
For instance, President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, which was enforced by the Republican members of the House of Representatives, was successfully conducted in 1998 (Riley, 2019). However, during the Senate trial, the President was acquitted and reinstated, with the Democrat representatives becoming the majority in Congress (Riley, 2019). As a result, the balance of power shifted towards the Democrat side, with the majority of the population supporting the acquisition.
Supporting Changing Times
The legislation that emerges as the result of the checks and balances system might often incite conflicts of opinions between the representatives of the governmental branches. Considering that the created laws can be changed or reversed by other entities, rather than only one, it is possible to reshape the current legislation that was adopted earlier. The Constitution supports such instances, as they promote the possibility to alter laws according to the changing opinions and beliefs (Holcombe, 2018). A prime example of this advantage is the Defense of Marriage Act, initially enforced by President Bill Clinton in 1998 but annulled by the Supreme Court in 2015 (US Congress, 1996). This instance manifests that the capacity to transform the legislation or deem it inapplicable is a vital benefit of the check and balances approach.
Disadvantages of the Checks and Balances System
Decreased State Productivity
A crucial disadvantage of the discussed strategy is the diminished efficiency of the state entities. As the authority is separated between different branches, the time required to introduce, approve, and execute a specific law is significantly diminished. In comparison with the unified government, the check and balances method requires that each function is performed by a distinct official body, meaning that additional resources are needed to secure productive communication between the branches (Manuel & Cammisa, 2019). For example, the time that passed between Bill Clinton’s impeachment inquiry and his acquisition was four months, which is a significant amount of time (Riley, 2019). From this perspective, unified governments can produce more efficient results, capable of quickly approving the suggested bills.
Separation of Power as a Potential Conflict
Another issue that can occur in the checks and balances system is related to the entity’s powers and the support from other governmental branches. When cooperating, two of the state entities hold the authority to support the remaining body, thus creating a disbalance in the distribution of governmental capacity. A prime example of this concept is the case of Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where the US President was granted absolute authority to dismiss the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (US Supreme Court, 2020). The director of the CFPB is a crucial governmental position, and transferring its management to the President can result in a disbalance of power between the Congress and the nation’s leader.
Conclusion
To conclude, the primary advantages and disadvantages of the checks and balances system implementation have been discussed in this paper with the incorporation of evidence from court cases that demonstrate the presented claims. Overall, it is evident that the discussed strategy perfectly addresses the issues of tyranny and self-regulation, allowing the governmental bodies to possess equal amounts of power and assess the authority levels held by other entities.
Nonetheless, the tendency towards decreased productivity and the potential conflict between the manifestations of power can be crucial disadvantages that diminish the applicability of the checks and balances method. Still, relying on this strategy allows the officials to ensure that the available power is allocated evenly and fairly, and the overall balance between the branches’ authority is controlled.
References
Astrada, M. L. (2017). The nature of the judicial process: A complex systems analysis of checks & balances & separation of powers in the present political context. Richmond Public Interest Law Review, 21(3), 263–296. Web.
Holcombe, R. G. (2018). Checks and balances: Enforcing constitutional constraints. Economies, 6(4). Web.
Manuel, P. C., & Cammisa, A. M. (2019). Checks and balances?: How a parliamentary system could change American politics. Routledge.
Riley, R. (2019). The Clinton impeachment and its fallout. Miller Center. Web.
United States Courts. (n.d.). Facts and Case Summary—Texas v. Johnson. Web.
US Congress. (1996). H.R.3396 – 104th Congress (1995-1996): Defense of Marriage Act (1995/1996) [Legislation]. Web.
US Supreme Court. (2020). 19-7 Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Web.
Zabavska, K. (2018). System of checks and balances as an attribute of democracy: Political analysis. Humanitarian Vision, 4(1), 27–32. Web.