The Fathers has to restrict government enough to prevent unbridled growth, yet allow some room for expansion in order to accommodate unexpected need, all in order to adhere to the thought that government was to be restricted to those situations and problems that people could not cope with on their own. Attempts to measure performance of the government vary from person to person and the results can vary as widely as the method preferred.
Given the myriad of perspectives and facets presented by the diverse population of the United States, there will always be at least one point in continual contention, whether between the three branches of government, or between the people and the federal government as a whole.
John Locke's original thoughts are the framework for the modern implementation of U. S. Government. Locke felt an ideal system of government would at minimum acknowledge these factors: all political power is a trust for the benefit of the people and the people themselves are at once the creators and beneficiaries of that trust. Contrary to popular belief, it was not Locke who called for the three distinct branches of government we recognize in today.
John Locke's version of Utopian government only called for two branches, the executive and the legislative. The addition of the third branch was created solely for the purpose of placating the Anti-Federalists who were fighting against the implementation of the Constitution as it exists today.
The three branches comprising the United States government are the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, each aligned with specific powers and areas of influence. The Constitution outlines a system of checks and balances ensuring no single branch could force influence over the other. The Legislative branch, consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives, is responsible for the creation of federal laws.
The Executive branch (more precisely the President of the United States) owns the responsibility of administering, executing, and enforcing the laws of the government. Finally, the Judicial branch is comprised of the Supreme Court and the federal courts, which are charged with the role of interpreting and applying US law and judicial review.
There are six foundational principles with which the US government was established. Succinctly, they are: Popular Sovereignty, Limited Government, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Judicial Review, and Federalism. Popular Sovereignty is a principle stating government's power lies with the people and any action taken should be for their benefit.
Limited Government describes since the people give government power and cannot create exceptions for itself, limiting actions to those deemed proper by the people. Separation of Powers merely details that each branch has its own purpose (make the laws, execute the laws, and interpret the laws) and cannot influence other branches. Checks and Balances is the precept relating that each branch has a method to legally object to the actions of another.
Judicial review characterizes the power of the Supreme Court to decide whether acts laws and acts fall within the guidelines of the Constitution. Finally, the principle of Federalism states the central government does not contain all the power in the nation. States hold overlapping powers to prevent the federal government from becoming too strong.
Of the six principles, the one most often exercised is Checks and Balances, so greater detail is called for with some normalizing of concepts to foster a better understanding. First, let's consider the three groups: the President, the Judges, and the Congress. The President executes the law, the Judges interpret the law, and the House, with the support of the people, creates the law. So how do Checks and Balances come into play?
If the President commits a crime, the Judges and the Congress ensure accountability. If Congress attempts to pass unfair laws, the President can veto them or the Judges can declare them unfair preventing passage. Finally, as Supreme Court justices are appointed by the executive, they commonly stay on well past the President who appointed them.
Since the President's term in office is limited, it is likely the predecessor will appoint a Judge with an opposing viewpoint, making the perspectives in the Supreme Court varied and less likely to be controlled by outside pressures.
The separation of power also created some odd cases to be heard, as evidenced in the public efforts U. S. Representative Ron Paul where he railed against federal courts which were upholding and state separation and other civil liberties. The most poignant realization occurs to the reader, when one considers it is the first amendment which allows Representative Paul to question and speak out. Without the first amendment, Paul would not have the civil right to make the argument.
Traditionally, rating whether a system of government as successful is much like asking different groups if who would be happier if you gave them a dollar. For most, especially those living within the United States and enjoying stable employment, receiving a free dollar would be much like being the recipient of a kind thought or gesture, but it would certainly not be cause for great celebration. On the other hand, if you were to make the same offer to a person without a stable income, or the means to obtain one, this dollar would resemble nothing short of a god send.
