In defining shared powers, we must first recognize the powers that each branch holds constitutionally as well as those means of checks and balances granted by the Constitution. The legislation makes the laws; executives enforce the laws; and laws are interpreted by the judicial branch. The powers of Appointment, Veto, Impeachment and Judicial Review were created to ensure that no one branch could act unilaterally on issues, inherently maintaining some sort of agreement across the branches as a consequence. This, I feel, is where the United States has evolved into a muddying of branch delineations, expectations and powers.
The idea of Shared Powers, therefore, is rooted in the blending of branch responsibilities and authorities. Executive Orders allow the President to bypass Congress in enacting the use of our military; Congressional Committees on the Judiciary make rulings on whether or not athletes used performance-enhancing drugs; and the Supreme Court of Florida decided the 2000 presidential election. Change has come by pragmatism, natural selection and force, with countless examples of each throughout our history.
Though the separation of powers in the United States has repeatedly been criticized for promoting inefficiency, I find this division a necessary component of our republic. Each branch of government has specific, intended purposes and has been created to meet those purposes. The intention and agenda of the actors in each of these branches is inherently different as is their expertise and experience.
Even as I consider myself an activist (in social and environmental justice), I cannot stray from the notion that change must happen within our federal government in a manner that is calculated and appropriate. Otherwise, as we are seeing now, partisan politics becomes an untamable beast. The originally intended balance of Judicial Branch (no party), Legislative Branch (at least two parties) and Executive Branch (one party) evolves in a battle where the loudest voice wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment