How effectively do the three branches of federal government check each other? 13/15 Tamanna Moushumi

The quasi-legislative power of the Supreme Court has meant that the over exertion of political power has become difficult to check in recent years. The Court’s use of judicial review in the US vs. Windsor case displayed the constitutionality of laws made by Congress being challenged by the Supreme Court and effectively reversed. Arguably, this reduces the effectiveness of the legislative branch, as the judicial branch can so easily interpret the constitution to mean a plethora of meanings and thus allow the judiciary the quasi legislative powers that allow them to change the law. This suggests checks and balances are sufficient as the Supreme Court is able to back the rights of minority groups of citizens which Congress doesn’t have the ability to do.

The President can circumvent Congress, illustrating that the checks are too weak. Obama has done this through the Immigration Executive Order; the bipartisan Gang of Eight bill failed and Obama has effectively worked around the rest of Congress by passing the Immigration Executive Order which prioritises the deportation of ‘felons, not families’. However, it could be argued that checks are effective through the actions of Congress overriding the President, as they are the legislative branch of government. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment prevented the use of federal funding to pay for abortions within Obamacare. Arguably, this was an effective check on presidential power as Congress circumvented the President by passing an altered version of Obamacare. Furthermore, the Stupak Pitts Amendment was backed up with an Executive Order, but only after Congress forced Obama to do so. This suggests that the checks ensure one branch does not become ultimately sovereign and power is equally distributed.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the checks and balances by the federal government are too strong to be effective due to the partisan gridlock that is the result of the 2014 Midterms, turning Obama into a lame-duck president. Prior to this, partisan gridlock occurred in Autumn 2013 when the government experienced a shutdown as the budget failed to pass; illustrating that the checks were too strong as the government shut down for sixteen consecutive days. Contrastingly, it could be argued that bipartisanship within government is what the Framers would have wanted; political philosopher Montisquieu remarks, ‘when the executive & legislative powers are united in one person, there can be no liberty’.

The legislature (the Senate) has the power to confirm or reject judicial nominations to the Supreme Court and the federal bureaucracy. The confirmation of Justice Kagan by senatorial courtesy trials are evidence of efficient checks and balances made by the legislature on the judiciary. However, it could be argued that the Senate was Democrat at the time and would be in favour of Obama’s nomination. On the other hand, in light of Chuck Hagel’s resignation, Ashton Carter’s nomination to the federal bureaucracy could be received differently, as the senatorial courtesy trials will be Republican controlled, and could very much influence the nomination as Secretary of State for Defence, having been nominated by Obama, a lame duck president.