Legislature risks balance of power
One of the beauties in the U.S. Constitution, historically emulated as a model for state constitutions as well as emerging democracies, is its concept of checks and balances. After experiencing a more lopsided form of government, our founders made it crystal clear: A stable democracy requires equally divided power.
Lately, one branch of government has been trying to shift that balance, usurping power for itself. The Idaho Legislature, unhappy with some of the governor’s decisions in arenas clearly within his purview, is responding not by censure or the ballot box, but by trying to change the law to give itself those powers.
That is a radical action which should frighten any fan of the Constitution or balanced government.
The idea that a just and fair government must divide power among branches — executive (governor or president), legislative (or Congress), and judicial (courts) — has deep philosophical and historical roots predating our Constitutional Convention. Even Ancient Rome had three branches. Their system influenced political philosophies in Europe’s Enlightenment period when separation of powers was identified by political scientists and philosophers as crucial to a well-functioning, fair government.
Our own framers cited those foundations and emphasized that balance. They carefully formed our democracy around it, spelling out which branch has what role to play and where the limits are.
For example, the legislative branch makes laws, but the executive branch can veto those laws and the judicial branch can declare them unconstitutional. But that’s not the end of it; if either of those happens, the legislature can override the veto or make different law.
The system has a lot of that back-and-forth, and it’s how our democracy is designed to address discontent among the branches. Federal and state governments rely on this system of checks and balances to ensure too much power doesn’t rest in one set of hands.
Otherwise, they warned, democracy is strangled. Tyranny results.
The governor leads the state’s executive branch. Within his purview are the day-to-day running of the state, enforcing laws passed by the legislature and interpreted by the courts, and handling emergencies. If they don’t like it or he acts outside his purview, the courts and legislature can respond, but within their purviews.
They can’t respond by shifting that purview in favor of themselves, lest they violate the letter or spirit of the checks-and-balance system.
States of emergency, unplanned, or time-urgent events such as fire, epidemics, earthquakes and so on are clearly the defined responsibility of the executive branch. That’s the one with the tools, authority, and information needed to act quickly to address such situations.
That includes the National Guard, first responders, medical and administrative resources. Neither the courts nor state legislators could do that effectively and efficiently enough to protect the public and lands.
That’s the governor’s job, and it’s a tough one.
Hindsight’s 20/20 and never does everyone agree. There are systemic means to express displeasure which don’t shift the balance of power. For the legislature that includes official censure and adding or changing rules, policies, and laws related to the issue. And of course, voting out the occupant on election day.
Those checks don’t change how the whole system works, and they don’t give one branch more power than balance can withstand.
Yes, constitutions are “living” documents. What was framed centuries ago could not envision a future world, so amendments and adjustments occur along the way. But we should be loath to do that, or constitutions become useless in their tatters.
More to the point, whatever changes we make must stop short of the foundational system itself. In a balanced system such as ours is by design, the power of each branch must remain sacred.
•••
Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Email Sholeh@cdapress.com.