MAYBE PARITY RATHER THAN PARTY

Co-equal branches of the United States of America government are no longer equal.  Parity is gone.  Symmetry is out of balance.  Even-handedness is out of whack.  There is a lack of equivalence.  The level’s bubble is off-center.

Looking at the Constitution, the three branches of our government are established in this order: legislative, executive, judicial --- Articles I, II and III.  That lineup makes sense.

Our government is supposed to be established by those who are ultimately affected in every way: the folks, to use the contemporary usage for “we the people.” It was not actually a gathering of all the people, but it all started with an assembly of people elected by the residents of the 13 original colonies.  They wrote the Declaration of Independence and they somehow managed to finance a revolution.  When they discovered by failure that the Articles of Confederation lacked the recipe for running a new nation, they came together in convention and wrote the Constitution of the United States.  The colonies-turned-states ratified that document, and the new country had a fresh start. 

That truncated history shows the pre-eminence of elected bodies – representatives of citizens, albeit all males – in molding a system of governance new to humankind.  Sure, there were some intelligent, educated, wise men behind the resulting document, but that piece of writing was worked by persons selected by various ballots to do the job.  And after ratification, elected people stuck on ten mighty additions that spelled out the rights of the people.  Those additions are labeled “amendments” and not more “articles.”

So, we got the Congress under Article I, the body representing citizens and states (remember, originally senators were elected by the state legislators) that decided proposed the laws of the land.

And we got the presidency for signing the proposals into law, law which the president was to carry out.  He was the see that the government formed by the citizen­-authorized convention functioned.  “President” was a relatively new term at the time, and making the chief executive of the United States of America both head of government and of state undoubtedly was a first. 

Finally, the judicial power was needed to decide what the laws meant.  The Constitution established “one supreme Court” and “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Over time, this original governmental structure has evolved.  Does the progression of the establishment of co-equal branches still obtain?   If not, should it?

Most important and notable in the changes have been the end of slavery and the full citizenship for women.  Also, senators are now popularly elected.  All those changes took many decades, too many.  Some disagreement still exists openly over the change in the Senate. 

Without getting too specific as to causes, most people will agree that the branches are no longer equal.  The center of gravity has shifted toward the presidency.  The president is the leader, or perceived as such.  Sure, the speaker of the House of Representatives for some time now is second in the line of succession, after the vice president (the secretary of state had been until late in the country’s second century) and the chief justice administers the presidential oath of office, but attention focuses on the president.  Are there anthems equivalent to “Hail to the Chief” for the speaker and the chief justice?   If so, no one can whistle them.

Besides the ceremonials that now surround the presidency (something eschewed by George Washington), such powers as executive orders, signing statements, interim appointments, war powers, and pressing or refusing indictments through the Justice Department are only a sample of ways the executive can control events. 

When the president is of the same political party that controls the senate then he and it can sometimes gain influence – if not control – over the high court through the appointment process.  That has happened.  (Once and attempt to “pack the court” by expanding its membership was averted by the Congress.)

Political parties are unmentioned in the Constitution.  They did develop soon after the new government was formed.  Over the centuries, the vitriol from the parties has ebbed and flowed.   Benefits of party exist; disadvantages as well.  Two parties – pretty much our system – may work better than many, such as in many parliamentary systems wherein organizing can become quite difficult.  With two, organization quickly falls into place.  With only two, moderate and marginal and mid members of the parties can affect outcomes; leadership becomes paramount; results may mirror parliamentary disarray.  [For the most part, legislative and executive are combined in a parliament while the judiciary exists separately and the head of state can be a figurehead.] Gathering votes is difficult in either system.

Inherent in our system is compromise.  As it exists, two parties can only decide issues through compromise, which probably is desirable in a mixed society such as ours. From time to time, one party controls both the presidency and the Congress; that can be problematical.  Perhaps a non­-partisan government would work out real solutions to national problems through avoiding angering zealots.  The chances of that happening would be greater had not the current situation developed.  Switching successfully to a non-party system would be difficult. 

No doubt parties will continue to be, even though they might not flourish. Most candidates are reluctant to advertise their party affiliations.  Independents cannot be ignored.  At times some problems by their very nature beg bi-partisan approaches; then debate becomes more substantive, even in a milieu of intense partisan disagreement (illegal immigration may be one such issue).

Ideally, government would confine itself to facing real problems, not those with some sexiness.  Solutions would be proposed after some competent research.  Opposition, also, would be based on competent research.  Previous attempts to eliminate the problem at hand would be examined.  Kudos would be collected by those politicians that did real work in approaching if not achieving a successful answer --- a workable law.

Oh, the alarm sounds.  The real world intervenes.