FREE ESSAY ON THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

Identify and comment on what you see to be the strengths and/or weaknesses of the American
system as far as the topics in this section are concerned.
The constitutional system of the United States is a puzzling aspect of an American's
life. Many do not understand. Some think they understand it and with their slight grasp
of it they try to offer solutions to better it. I would like to offer a broad concept of
the American constitutional system and its subcategories, which are the executive,
legislative and judicial branches, and what I have learned about them. In this paper, I
will also present the strengths and weaknesses concerning each category.
To begin to grasp the constitutional system, one must first comprehend why it was chosen
and why the forefathers composed it this way. Because most Americans, at that time, owned
guns and were not formerly educated, the forefathers feared allowing them to rule
(lecture 9/27/99). So they took it upon themselves, the well educated, to forge a new
democracy. The forefathers chose a mixed government that represented three existing forms
of government: a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy (lecture 9/27/99). The President
would represent the elected monarchy, the Senate would represent the aristocracy, and the
House of representatives would represent the democracy.
The set up of the constitutional system chosen by the forefathers prevented the
opportunity for the government to become oppressive (lecture 9/27/99). This was done in
several ways. First the forefathers invented separation of powers. The legislative,
judicial, and executive branches were set up in the manner that it would be less likely
for them to come together. Each department had separate and distinct requirements to
fulfill. The requirements will be delineated later on. On the other hand, each branch
interfered with each other through checks and balances. The checks and balance system
allowed for three important events to occur with each section of the government. 
The checks and balance system deliberately set the three branches at odds with each
other. Each department was made responsible for different electoral pressures. As
mentioned before the branches were also given the ability and agility to interfere into
the jurisdiction of the other. For instance, the President is responsible to negotiate
treaties but the senate must ratify it. Congress can pass it and then the President
signs. But even if Congress ratifies the treaty and the President signs it, the Supreme
Court can declare it unconstitutional (lecture 9/27/99).
This division of power occurs at two levels; the federal and state level. The federal
system consists of the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. The state level
consists of a governor, representatives, and local courts. The system seems to work very
well but does it? When the forefathers forged the constitutional system there were
certain problems that they did see, mainly because the country was relatively smaller and
consequently less problems to deal with. The government did not have to be so efficient
for it to work. The American society was wealthier in the sense that products were less
expensive. For instance energy was cheaper, it only cost $1.15 for gas while in France it
was 5 franks. But now the United States is involved in a competitive global economy and
therefore lacks the efficiency that it once obtained. Another reason why the system
worked so well was because the forefathers intended it not to work rapidly (lecture
9/27/99).
Can anything be done about the inefficiency that the system faces in such a competitive
modern world? There are some alternatives that Theodore J. Lowi provides in an excerpt
entitled Presidential Power: Restoring the Balance, but these solutions will come later
on after the presentation of the three branches. For now I would like to expound on the
strengths and weakness concerning the formation of the constitutional system. I believe
that it was sheer genius. There exists no other government like our own and that has
succeeded as well as ours has. The United States remains the only lasting superpower.
There are many strengths in the system that allows for this.
The separation of powers allows for the distinct role of each branch but with this
distinction each branch must check and balance each other. This makes complete sense
because if each branch of the government were to be set on an equal ground there may be a
struggle for power and control. This way each department is responsible for the well
being of one another in reinforcing each other's roles in being a government for the
people. Each branch, although up holding the voice of the people would be able to make
sure that policies and laws for the people would be just and fair. The checks and balance
system allows for this to happen so that any branch could not take it upon itself to form
any unjustifiable law or policy.
The division of the government into a state and federal government is also a product of
our prodigy forefathers. The federal system would have the job of making and upholding
foreign policies and the overseeing the domestic affairs of the country while the state
government could focus on its own policies and affairs. Each state is different. There is
not one state that is 100% similar to the other. There are different customs and
reservations, various dialects of the English language, and diverse issues that each
state deals with. Massachusetts and New York are neighbors in the Northeast portion of
the country but both have distinct identifiers. Massachusetts's residents are thought to
be intellectually inclined which may produce some snobbery. We are more reserved in our
attire and openness towards one another. We, for the most part, pronounce our 'r' s like
'h' s. Public and private facilities are closed earlier to help enforce better lifestyles
and diminish violence. On the other side, New Yorkers are thought to be blunt and proud.
There 'r' s are pronounced like 'ou' s. Public and private facilities are open long after
ours are closed. New York is a place of excitement, fashion, and parties and
Massachusetts is a place of business, history and education, (not to say that New Yorkers
aren't educated).
To expand on the weakness of the system it is best to look at the constitutional system
from the inside out. First, let's take a look at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is
supposed to basically uphold the laws and the constitution. According to David M.
O'Brien, the author of the excerpt entitled The Supreme Court: From Warren to Burger to
Rehnquist, in it's history the Supreme court has been known as a champion of one cause or
another. It has played a substantial role in the political movement except during times
of transitions and important elections. Presidential election control the judges
appointed onto the Court and sometimes the path that the Court takes (O' Brien).
There are nine judges who are share power and influence. The judges must accommodate for
the position and voice of every other voice but the Chief Justice, if influential and
persuasive enough has the ability and opportunity to revolutionize the voice of the court
and have an everlasting role in history. This is what each Chief Justice seeks to achieve
(O'Brien). The Warren court is one of the more memorable courts in contrast to the
Renhquist Court, which the author chooses as the more memorable. During Chief Justice
Warren's appointment, there were several impacting rulings made. The first of these
rulings was in the case of Brown v. the Board of Education. In 1954, Warren declared that
separate but equal was inherently unconstitutional and ordered for the desegregation of
schools. 
Desegregation of schools changed the life of many citizens and sparked a revolution in
American schools (O'Brien). Imagine going to school with only black or white students and
then one day having to mix. For few this may have been a good adventure but for most this
threatened their very notion of separate but equal and the lifestyles. Schools were
closed because whites did not want blacks in their schools. Many blacks were terrorized
and ridiculed when and if they could attend a previously all white school. Angry
sentiments were expressed to Blacks, supporters of this decision and, Justice Warren
himself (Eyes on the Prize: Civil Rights documentary).
Warren also announced the reapportionment revolution in guaranteeing equal voting rights
in 1962, he extended the exclusionary rule to the states in 1961, and in 1966, he sharply
police interrogations of criminal suspects (O'Brien). These rulings gave him a mark in
history as one of the great chief justices (O'Brien. Another Chief Justice included in
this article is Burger who on the other hand  proved to be a considerable disappointment
for conservatives (O'Brien). Although he was a devoted Republican he, often times, voted
on the liberal side. He was a friend of Warren who had an intrigue for court management.
But his personality and prevented him from being decisive, and he was incapable of
compromising which is a key to one's success in leading the Court (O'Brien). 
There were a few important ruling during his appointment like the Roe v. Wade case, which
lead to the right for a woman to obtain an abortion (O'Brien). There were few judges like
Justice Brennan and Marshall who voted against this. They were called this because of
their independent and strong judgments (O'Brien). There are exemplary judges and those
who do not necessarily qualify. Chief Justice Warren was an exemplary judge but his crony
Burger was under qualified for the job. But the job itself is hard and involves
compassion, knowledge, and sternness some of which Robert H. Hork, author of Our Judicial
Oligarchy, says are lost and much of the time is not apparent.
Hork says that  the most important moral political, and cultural, decisions affecting our
lives are steadily being removed from democratic control. Only justices Antonin Scalia
and Clarence Thomas attempt to give the Constitution the meaning it had for those who
adopted it. This is quite a strong statement that he makes. It introduces a whole new
aspect on the previously unknown weaknesses of the Supreme Court. Hork states that most
members of the Court seem to be gnostics firmly believing they have access to wisdom
denied the rest of us. Justices may be out of tune with reality and the truth of the law.
They rule, as if they know best, but shouldn't they? Isn't that the job that they should
fulfill, to know what is best? They should know what is best for the country but not by
their own will or opinion but by the application of the constitution.
Justices have become more liberal and rule on decisions that may not involve them. They
even so far as to overriding present desires when they  declare a statute
unconstitutional (Hork). Hork accuses them of sometimes making up what is not there. He
provides five examples of which the Court has demeaned itself and weakened the
constitutions purpose and has ultimately empowered themselves as the sovereign authority.
Using two of the cases will help to expand on his accusations. Virginia Military
Institute had been an all-male school and it was protected from not admitting women by an
equal protection clause for 128 years. The Court ordered this institution to admit women
under the guise equal rights and anti-discrimination laws. But it is the law that was
used the equal protection clause that protected the Institution for 128 years (Hork).
In another case a hauler had been an outspoken against the Board of County Commissioners
which is not an unfamiliar practice. But the Court elevated patronage to the level of a
First Amendment violation. This is an evident misapplication of the First Amendment.
These cases are examples of the weakness and frivolity of the Court. Many Justices are
arrogantly self ordained, impervious to arguments about its proper behavior, and
unrestrained in its loose interpretation of the constitution which all can lead to a
disastrous in for the reliability of the Supreme Court and its duty to reinforce
democracy. These are distinct weaknesses for the judicial branch but the legislative and
executive branch suffers from certain weaknesses.
Congress and the Presidents have always mingled. The job of congress is to legislate. It
ultimately shares this duty with the President and the Supreme Court, but remains at the
center of making legislation. Congress introduces its own legislation and does the
bidding of the people (lecture 11/17/99). It had much strength and now has many
weaknesses. In chapter 10 section one of Cigler and Loomis' book entitled American
Politics, we learn about the changing textbook congress. The strength of Congress resided
in its party unity and loyalty, coordination, reciprocity in the 1940's and the 1950's
(C&L 350). Congress was known for its hard working members who knew each other's name and
were familiar with each other. Party members were loyal to what their respective party
represented. There was organization and a give and take relationship between members of
congress. This all changed.
The weaknesses of congress are more apparent because of several factors. The increase of
staff members complicated the liability of the congressman and the many committees
undermined the power of the legislative system (C&G 341). Committee chairmen exercise
their power by making policies and thus decentralizing the process of legislation
(lecture 11/29/99). Rubbing elbows is replaced by liaisons between legislative corporate
enterprises in the 1960's (C&G 341). Also during the 1960' and 1970's there were economic
and demographic changes that required reapportionment of districts (C&G 343-344).
Districts were no longer rural or urban and this introduced a diversification of matters.
This in the long run has affected the president's role.
The presidents role, according to the article entitled If You Sincerely Want to Be a
United States, was to be an embodiment to external threats, be commander-in-chief if the
armed forces, and conclude treaties and appoint ambassadors. He was to be the instrument
of a unified foreign policy. These are the strengths of the president. His ability to
represent the country to the world effectively and prominently. This is not the case now.
The President has be tied down because of a superman identity (lecture 12/6/99). America
has made the president the head of his party. This disillusions the people because they
have great expectations of him. Theodore J. Lowi says that ' the people continue to
vacillate between excessive expectations and unwarranted indignation in his article,
Presidential Power: Restoring the Balance.
This superman identity arose from the Nixon presidency. He was brought upon the imperial
presidency, which allowed him to assume a few falsities. The President was above the law,
the president and the state are the same, the president should assume certain powers, and
barriers set against the President's actions were acts equivalent to treason (Lowi).
However, some Presidents did not act in this manner and did not assume these uncasing
privileges. Andrew Jackson, James Monroe, James Madison and are all former Presidents who
felt that it was unconstitutional and contrary to the forefathers wishes for the
president to obtain the powers that Nixon assumed (C&L 11:2 384,386).
These may seem like strengths of the executive branch but they are weaknesses for it and
congress. Congress looses its ability to check and balance the President's actions
because of his superman identity. The president is overwhelmed with unprecedented
responsibilities and congress is left with little to or frustrated on what to do. Many
attempts have been initiated to curb the presidents power and restore balance through the
Wars Power Resolution and the Congressional and Impoundment Control Act (Lowi). Theodore
J. Lowi introduces a few resolutions; a single six-year term, stronger political parties,
or a three party system (Lowi, lecture 9/29/99)
Viewing the weakness and strengths of the constitutional systems and its components, I
would not say that we are doomed for distaste but institutional reform is a must and
obligation for present and future politicians and political scholars. The only way this
would happen is if the president or the next would be willing to admit to the unbalance
between the executive and legislative branch. He would also have to disappoint the
American people by denouncing the superman identity. The Supreme Court would have to be
regulated by the President or Congress. Its life long tenure would probably be the first
to go. Once you have something for good you can do anything with it but understanding the
possibility that it can be removed may shape up one's position and action.