GAVEL GAMUT
By Jim Redwine
www.jamesmredwine.com
A TEETERING BALANCE
Our federal democracy is seen as having three equal branches that keep our democracy
by equally asserting restraints on one another. The Legislative Branch plays its part by having 435 representatives elected for 2-year terms by citizens throughout the country along with 100 senators elected for 6-year terms. These just over 500 individuals have many functions but they really have only one power, providing or restricting funds to themselves and to the other two branches of government, the Executive and Judicial Branches.
The Executive Branch has thousands of functionaries but its most powerful executive is
the President who directly and indirectly heads the military and countless other divisions of that diverse branch. Each of those often nameless bureaucracies has untold, often nameless, functionaries whose functions may hold the key to whether our government functions.
The Judicial Branch is easy to generally designate but much more difficult for the
populace and the other two branches to corral as the Judicial Branch has generally defined itself since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In fact, the Judicial Branch jealously and vigorously spends much of its time struggling to make sure the other two branches do not infringe on its powers, the chief of which is to define what the law allows the other two branches to do.
This theory of a three equal and separate foundation of our democracy works well as long
as the powers of each branch remain truly separate and fairly balanced and each branch is
composed of greatly dispersed functionaries. It is not a novel observation that our great
democracy has remained democratic, mostly, because it remains diverse, dispersed and divided.
When power becomes concentrated in a particular individual or individuals or branch,
democracy suffers and internecine competitions may arise. Such theoretical and rhetorical battles can, as our Civil War proved, break out into real battles as one or two or even all three of the branches seek dominance.
Currently, we have members of each branch asserting efforts to imprint upon our whole
country the vision of a few executives, followed by a few judges, both entities being subject to the status of financial hostages from a powerful few in the Legislative Branch. Now, some may analyze our current imbroglio as evidence our three-branch theory is simply working itself out in practice. That could be true. However, I hypothesize our Founding Fathers may have neglected the Fourth Branch of our social/governmental structure, the citizenry. Normally we have an. electorate that, while unhappy perhaps, still finds a way to “soldier on”.
Our current social intercourse pits about one-half of America against the other half, sort
of like the times of the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 that led to the Civil War. Much as when a large portion of the United States agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that African Americans were not citizens while another large portion disagreed. Many Americans today either agree or disagree with Birthright Citizenship and several other issues. One President and at least one federal judge come down on opposite sides of this citizenship issue and probably several others.
Such matters being seen diametrically opposite by each of two of our branches and both
branches awaiting input from the Legislative and more importantly the public, creates a situation where our national soul may be at war with itself. What is called for is much more equal and reasonable input from each branch, especially that Fourth Branch, the populace.
For more Gavel Gamut articles go to www.jamesmredwine.com
