Separation of Powers, Overreach, Gridlock

To the Editor:
Our Founding Founders were sensitized to tyranny by the British Crown, framing the Constitution to discourage abuse of power. Federalist 10 (1787) described this concern as, “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” John Adams used the phrase “tyranny of the majority” in 1788. Madison and others voiced concerns. These wise men created a system of separate independent (co-equal) powers so that one branch of government wouldn’t dominate the others. We still have the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. Modern events make one wonder how equal they are.
The Founders understood human nature, not naïve enough to think the capacity for mischief among the politically ambitious could be eliminated by any document. The Constitution’s necessary checks and balances today seem insufficient to prevent abuse.
The Founder’s concerns have come to pass. Washington is less interested in legislating and governing than dominant political power. Our system should make compromise a reality. That was the Founders’ intent.
2014: we have partisan gridlock in Congress (lesser evil than runaway majority power), a robust use of executive-branch orders in lieu of congressional deliberation and, as always, efforts to slant the Federal Courts by ideologically selective appointments. The Founders would be sad and appalled by the size and reach of federal government and depth of partisanship, but unlikely surprised. The constitution they gave us should work, if we had the wisdom to make it so. We haven’t.
A stark example of majority-power abuse is the raw majority power and manipulation of Senate rules that gave us Obamacare without a single Republican vote and widespread congressional ignorance of the law’s content. In general, the president has declared he won’t wait for Congress’ support as the Constitution intends. Rather he has and will use his pen and phone to “get things done.” Even modifying laws, e.g., Obamacare without the constitutionally required consent of Congress.
Others have used executive orders. George W. Bush was criticized for it, but Obama seems to have adopted them as an extra-constitutional policy. Noted constitutional expert, Georgetown law professor and Obama supporter Jonathan Turley observed that Obama’s attitude represents a constitutional danger (precedent) going forward into future administrations. How did things get this way? The players in the Washington-power game are there because we put them there for any number of reasons, sound, selfish or foolish.
Our right to vote doesn’t require us to be wise, well informed or without self-interest. Our votes helped shape today’s reality, they can also change it. It was the Founder’s desire our elected ones negotiate across party lines. One major job of the president is to lead good-faith negotiations with Congress. He should push for compromise, bending himself. Pen and phone indeed. Tyranny? Not yet. Slippery slope? Perhaps. Overreach? Definitely.
With many foreign and domestic issues on the nation’s plate it’s past time to repair dysfunctional government! Congressional incumbents (both parties) up for re-election should feel uneasy. If our votes send any message it should be we are weary of the partisan power games that Congress must work together across party lines and with a willing White House. Congress controls the purse, is as responsible for spending, deficits, debt and growth of government the president. Do we need to vote incumbents out of office till they get things right? May be. That’s our political power. Call it voters wrath!