Staff Reports
Representative Jamie Raskin’s recent remarks about the balance of power in the U.S. government have sparked debate over the Founders’ vision of checks and balances. While the Constitution establishes three branches designed to check each other’s authority, Raskin has emphasized that over the others. This stance aligns with his legislative efforts to reinforce congressional oversight and address perceived imbalances in judicial power .
The Founders, influenced by thinkers like Montesquieu, crafted a system where the legislative, executive, and judicial branches share power through mutual constraints. James Madison argued that each branch’s “ambition” to protect its domain would naturally prevent overreach—a principle exemplified by veto overrides, judicial review, and impeachment powers . For example:
– Congress can pass laws, but presidents may veto them (though Congress can override with a 2/3 vote).
– Courts can strike down unconstitutional laws, but judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate .
Raskin’s critique centers on modern challenges to this framework. He has championed reforms like expanding the Supreme Court, enforcing judicial ethics rules, and strengthening congressional subpoena power—measures he argues are necessary to counterbalance an increasingly assertive judiciary and executive branch . His position reflects concerns that have eroded the Founders’ intended equilibrium, particularly as the Supreme Court has expanded its influence over contentious policy issues .
Critics argue that Raskin’s push for reforms risks politicizing the judiciary and undermining its independence. However, his supporters counter that proactive measures are needed to preserve the “deliberative, representative, and accountable” nature of government envisioned by the Constitution . This debate underscores the tension between maintaining traditional checks and balances and adapting them to address contemporary governance challenges.
