Running head: THE CASE FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

The Case for Checks and Balances

The Ohio State University

THE CASE FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES 2

The Case for Checks and Balances

The concerns facing the 55 members of the Constitutional Convention were numerous,

but the question underlying all their problems was this: how should they structure the new

government so that it would be strong enough to protect the nation while still safeguarding the

freedoms of the governed? Years of British rule had shown that unchecked power was

dangerous to liberty. At the same time, the turmoil in the new nation since the end of the

Revolutionary War in 1783 had made it clear that a stronger central government was necessary.1

In order to balance the need for strength and order against the need to protect justice and

liberty, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 crafted a structure of government

that achieved a middle ground. Each of the components of the new government would have the

power the limit the actions of the others through a series of “checks and balances”. As James

Madison put it in Federalist 51 “...the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the

government into distinct and separate departments.”2

The Constitution delineates specific responsibilities and rights to the three branches of the

government. At the same time, one or more of the other branches retains the power to review or

prohibit actions by another. For example, the two houses of Congress determine which

proposals will become law, but each house must obtain the agreement of the other before a bill

can be submitted to the President. The President, in turn, has the power to veto the bill, but his

veto can be overridden if enough members of Congress support the bill. Finally, the Supreme

Court can exercise their right to judicial review, whereby they can determine that a law is

unconstitutional.3
THE CASE FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES 3

The system of checks and balances effectively safeguards against the abuse of power. In

the case of legislation, the oversight of both houses of Congress serves to prevent a small faction

from passing laws that are not supported by a majority of Congress. The Supreme Court ensures

that the nation remains in compliance with its framework by striking down laws that violate the

Constitution, thus limiting the power of Congress. Congressional confirmation of Supreme

Court Justices ensures that the composition of the Court reflects a balance that corresponds to the

makeup of ideologies within Congress. The powers of the President can be checked by

impeachment by the House,4 and trial by the Senate, but only if two-thirds of the Senate

concurs.5 All of these structural limitations serve to ensure that no single branch of government

is ever in a position to exercise unrestrained power over the others.

The checks and balances system also has limitations. While the Judicial and Executive

branches have the power to limit the actions of the Legislative branch, Congress can exercise

substantial power if both houses are united: the House and Senate, working together, can pass

any legislation and thus eliminate the power of the Presidential veto. Conversely, a divided

legislature necessarily increases the power of the President, by making his veto more likely and

giving him more control over the passage of legislation. The President also has the power to

circumvent decisions by the Supreme Court by invoking his right to pardon criminals for

offenses “against the United States”.6

Despite the limitations inherent in the American system of checks and balances, it

remains an effective system. The separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative, and

Judicial branches of government serves to insulate the nation against rampant factionalism,

unrestrained executive privilege, and unconstitutional laws. Although our nation today faces
THE CASE FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES 4

issues that the framers of the Constitution could have never imagined, the principles of

governance set forth in 1787 continue to fulfill the vision put forth in Federalist No. 51 for “a

government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”7

References
1
United States Department of the Interior. National Parks Service. Springfield Armory
National Historic Site. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. <http://www.nps.gov>.
2
The National Archives and Records Administration. The Federalist No. 51. Web. 20 Nov.
2009. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov>.
3
The National Archives and Records Administration. Marbury v. Madison. Web. 20 Nov.
2009. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov>.
4
The National Archives and Records Administration. Constitution of the United States.
Article I, Section 2. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov>.
5
The National Archives and Records Administration. Constitution of the United States.
Article I, Section 3. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov>.
6
The National Archives and Records Administration. Constitution of the United States.
Article II, Section 2. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov>.
7
The National Archives and Records Administration. The Federalist No. 51. Web. 20 Nov.
2009. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov>.