The system of checks and balances in the United States government was designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, and to ensure that the government operates in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and the will of the people. Here are some of the ways in which the checks and balances in the U.S. have been criticized as not working well:

Increased political polarization and partisanship in recent years have led to gridlock in the legislative branch, making it difficult for Congress to pass necessary legislation. This can undermine the ability of Congress to check the executive branch effectively.

Some critics argue that recent presidents have overstepped their authority by using executive orders and other means to bypass Congress, potentially undermining the legislative branch’s role in checking the executive. Joe Biden is a perfect example of executive order overreach.

As of May 9, 2023, Biden has signed 115 executive orders, many of which are unconstitutional and need judicial intervention. Executive order 14008 makes a phony claim that there is a climate crisis at home and abroad which threatens national security, and orders all government agencies to prioritize net-zero emissions by 2050. Just by declaring that climate change is a crisis does not give you the authority to order such draconian government measures. Read a sample of Biden’s executive orders to see how unconstitutional they are.

In Trump’s case you can even argue that Biden, through the executive branch’s DOJ (Department of Justice), compelled government bureaucrats to go after Trump with criminal charges amounting to 4 indictments with a total of 91 criminal charges. Whether Trump will survive this weaponized onslaught of lawfare and survive financially is still in question.

Congress is responsible for overseeing the executive branch, but in some cases, it has been criticized for failing to conduct thorough oversight of the executive branch’s actions, leading to an unchecked expansion of executive power.

Some believe that the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, has at times engaged in “judicial activism,” making policy decisions that should be in the purview of the legislative branch. This can undermine the legitimacy of such institutions. In 2022, we saw the reversal of a longstanding court decision, Roe v. Wade, and abortion advocates cried “judicial activism.” However, this change could more accurately be described as judicial conservatism, stressing the right to life and not activism which the left claims. However, it’s added fuel to the fire, as Democrats want to increase the number of judges and politically pack the Supreme Court with activist leftist judges so their dysfunctional progressive ideas are supported legally too.

The impeachment process, which is a constitutional check on the executive, has at times been criticized for being politically motivated or ineffective, as demonstrated by the outcomes of some recent impeachment proceedings on Trump during his tenure as president. The impeachment inquiry into Biden will probably fail in landing an actual impeachment of Biden just as in Trump’s case.

Concerns have been raised about the expansion of national security and surveillance powers in the executive branch, sometimes without adequate checks to protect civil liberties.

Special interest groups and lobbying can exert undue influence on the legislative branch, potentially compromising its ability to serve as an effective check on executive and legislative power.

Some argue that unelected bureaucrats and agencies within the executive branch have too much influence and operate with limited transparency, undermining accountability.

The lack of transparency and competence in the CDC and the FDA were major reasons for the Covid disaster which resulted in economically hurtful lockdowns, vaccine mandates, small business failures, ineffectual mask mandates for school children hampering their educational progress, censorship of contrarian Covid information, and false claims about the protection offered by the vaccine and subsequent booster shots. It was oppressive bureaucracy run amok, all justified with a declared national emergency for a pandemic—which in Sweden was ignored without dire economic consequences or endangering public health.

The president’s ability to appoint individuals to key positions, including federal judges, can lead to long-lasting policy and ideological shifts, potentially impacting the balance of power within the government.

It’s important to note that these challenges to the checks and balances system are not unique to any one political party or administration. They reflect ongoing debates and concerns in the U.S. political system, and addressing them is a complex and ongoing process that requires careful consideration of constitutional principles and the will of the people.

So, in conclusion, the checks and balances of the United States government are out of whack. A nightmare scenario would be a government ruled by executive order and a one-party system or authoritarian tyranny by any other name.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.