The question itself, "Is American democracy working?" is so vast, and the topic so complex, it could fill volumes before an adequate answer was found with which to settle the subject. Undoubtedly, if presented this question, most would pause, mindfully think for a short minute, and then, with a degree of certainty, answer yes. We've had no need to rise up and overthrow our government at any point in our short history. Elections for all public offices are held every few years, and since George Washington was elected as our first president, these transitions of power have occurred without any violence. Whichever side of the political landscape you find yourself on, liberal, conservative, or a little of both, to look at were we as a nation are today is to see that American democracy must be working. Otherwise, this experiment called the United States would have come apart long ago, right?
Not so fast. A student of history would have some serious problems with simply giving our “democracy” a pass/fail grade. In exiting this class, I have learned a great deal in regards to our system of government, to include the history behind it and the ideals our Founding Fathers aspired to. If I were asked this question two months ago, I would have stopped, thought a minute, and, with a possible reservation or two, said “Yes, for the most part, we're doing very well for ourselves”. Today, I can see how far we've gone from where we were intended to go, and how our democracy is still working, but only on the surface. American democracy is coming undone. We are not over the edge yet, but the majority of Americans are unaware of the serious problems we face, and that ignorance will be what causes the wheels of democracy to stop turning.
A Separation of Powers
First, we look at our current system of checks and balances. While not in a state of complete disarray, there are forces in action which certainly undermine the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. In fear of a strong central government which could lead to tyranny, they developed a separation of powers which would ensure no one branch could ever usurp power from the other two1. Each power given or assumed by any branch was always checked by giving either of the other branches a competing power to maintain balance in the system. We can see a presidential veto of a bill checked by a two-thirds vote to override in the Senate. The president can commute a prison sentence and grant pardons or reprieves, in effect rendering moot a Court's decision. Congress has the right to confirm or deny presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. In the name of democracy, this system of checks and balances was instituted. A look at our current situation reveals a growing problem with all three branches skirting around, or flat out ignoring, what was written into our Constitution.
Let's look at the U.S. Courts and highlight the abuse of their power of judicial review. Judicial review was written into the Constitution in order to give the Judiciary a check on laws Congress passes. As the Constitution was ruled the supreme law of the land, no law could be passed which contradicted it. Claimed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 18032, Marshall understood that the courts needed to have the power to rule unconstitutional any law which would detract from the Constitution or prove harmful to the nation as a whole. Left in the hands of those who strictly interpret the Constitution, this is a prudent and necessary tool. In light of today's activist judges who view the Constitution as a living document, meaning they believe it must evolve with the times and so must a judges rulings, judicial review is a dangerous weapon. The system of Courts was designed to operate as impartial and independent from the politics of the day. Judges were appointed for life, with voluntary retirement an option at any point in their service. Congress and the President were expressly denied from changing the salaries of actively servicing judges so as to render them immune to either punishments or incentives for a particular ruling. This cocoon judges reside in is intended to leave them in a position to make fair and impartial rulings based on a strict interpretation of the law. Cases abound where judges act on their personal feelings and not in concert with their intended purpose. When judges legislate from the bench, they rob citizens of their right to govern themselves.
As I referenced in an earlier discussion, U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) noted that state and federal courts have ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, legalized same-sex "marriage," authorized governments to take private property solely to increase tax revenues, blocked parental control of sex education and protected online pornography all in recent months3. He's proposing a constitutional amendment that would require federal judges to interpret laws based on the text of the Constitution and the common meanings of the words used in a law at the time it was adopted. His proposal would further forbid judges from taking any action that would, in any way, alter the original meaning of the Constitution, to include subsequent amendments. This blatant abuse of a power, judicial review, which was not even written into the Constitution, is a threat to this country, and action is needed to correct it before more harm is done.
