Community Civics and Rural Life

by Arthur William Dunn

Not only did the framers of the Constitution carefully limit the powers that the national government might exercise, but they also introduced into the organization of the government various devices to control it and to prevent any of its parts from assuming too much power. The most important of these is the system of CHECKS AND BALANCES. In our national government, as in the state governments, the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are SEPARATED. In early times in England, the king could make any laws he wished, he could enforce them as he pleased, and he controlled the courts of justice. In our government the legislature, composed of representatives of the people, makes the laws; the executive branch of government sees to their enforcement; and the courts, which are responsible neither to the legislature nor to the executive, interpret the laws and administer justice in accordance with the laws. This separation of powers is to prevent any one person or group of persons from exercising too much power, as the king did, and is a safeguard to the liberty of the people. But the separation of powers IS NOT COMPLETE. Each branch of government has A LIMITED CONTROL over the others. This constitutes THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, which still further protects the people's liberties.

While the President cannot make the laws, he is given a check upon the lawmaking power of Congress by his veto power. On the other hand, he cannot, by an excessive use of his veto power, destroy the lawmaking power of Congress, because Congress may pass laws over the President's veto by means of a two-thirds vote.

The President cannot make a treaty, nor appoint men to office, without the consent of the senate; neither can he exercise his executive powers until Congress votes him the necessary money.

If Congress passes a law that is contrary to the Constitution the courts may declare the law void, and the executive cannot enforce it. The courts, on the other hand, are in a measure under the control of both Congress and the President, for Congress may create and destroy courts (except those created by the Constitution), and the President, with the consent of the senate, appoints the judges.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CHECKS AND BALANCES

The "checks and balances" in the organization of our government have been very effective in accomplishing the purpose for which they were intended, namely, to protect the liberties of the people against despotic government. But they have also, at times, been an obstacle to team work and to effective service. It sometimes happens, for example, that the President represents one political party, while the majority of one or both houses of Congress are of the opposing party. The two branches of government may then enter into a struggle on partisan grounds, each trying to defeat the program of the other. Such a situation was probably unforeseen by the framers of the Constitution, although it again reminds us of Washington's warning with regard to the dangers of the party spirit.

THE IMPLIED POWERS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

With the growth of our nation, the national government has come to perform a vast amount of service, as we have seen in earlier chapters, and to regulate the lives of the people in a multitude of ways little dreamed of by the makers of the Constitution. This has been possible because of the principle of IMPLIED POWERS in the Constitution. This means that some of the powers expressly granted in the Constitution have been broadly interpreted to IMPLY powers not expressly stated. There are certain clauses in the Constitution that especially lend themselves to such broad interpretation. For example, after the enumeration of the powers which Congress may exercise, in section 8 of Article I, clause 18 of that section gives Congress power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers …" Another clause whose liberal interpretation has been responsible for much of the service performed by the national government is that giving it the power to regulate interstate commerce (Art. I, sec. 8, clause 3).

In the early days of our government the Federalist party, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, proposed the creation of a NATIONAL BANK. The Republican party under Jefferson opposed this because the Constitution did not expressly provide for it, and because it was feared that it would give the national government too much power. But the "broad constructionists" argued that a national bank was a "necessary and proper" means to enable the national government "to borrow money on the credit of the United States" and to exercise other financial powers expressly granted in the Constitution. The supreme court of the United States supported the latter view, and the national bank became a fact.

The building of roads and other internal improvements by the national government have always been opposed by the "strict constructionists," except where roads were clearly "post-roads" (Article 1, section.8, clause 7). But the "broad constructionists" argued that roads were "necessary and proper" to provide "for the common defense," and also as a means "to regulate commerce among the several states."