In the realm of U.S. democracy, the principle of “checks and balances” is a time-tested structure arising from the Constitution. This system is designed to prevent the consolidation of too much power into the hands of one branch of government by distributing authority across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Recent history saw President Donald Trump pushing these boundaries with executive orders, budget cuts to government agencies, and public discontent with judicial opposition. Scholars like John Carey of Dartmouth College highlight the founding fathers’ intent to counteract concentrated authority, although he stresses that this system relies on all parties exercising their powers ethically and in good faith.
Throughout American history, checks and balances have been challenged in various forms. One significant early confrontation occurred when President John Adams made last-minute judicial appointments in 1801 that were neglected by his successor, Thomas Jefferson. This led to the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall established the precedent that the Supreme Court could declare congressional acts unconstitutional, while asserting the court’s authority to interpret the law.
The issue of national banks set political leaders against one another when Alexander Hamilton, supported by President George Washington, established the First Bank of the United States in 1791. Andrew Jackson later opposed its existence, citing it as catering to the wealthy elite and vetoed a congressional measure to extend its charter. Similarly, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln controversially suspended habeas corpus, arguing national security needs outweighed legal norms, eventually receiving retrospective legislative support.
Post-Civil War, tensions between President Andrew Johnson and Radical Republicans in Congress flared over Reconstruction policies. While Congress enacted measures to assist formerly enslaved individuals, Johnson, utilizing his powers, countered with differing policies, leading to conflicts mitigated by congressional authority in funding.
Reforming government employment, the 1883 Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act moved federal jobs away from a patronage system to merit-based appointments—an ongoing transformation recently questioned by Trump, who endeavored to re-establish more political appointability in federal employment.
President Woodrow Wilson’s push for the League of Nations post-World War I was another moment where the Senate’s power manifested as it refused the treaty favored by Wilson. U.S. participation in an international governing body had to wait until after World War II with the creation of the United Nations.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal era encountered resistance from a conservative Supreme Court, leading the president to propose increasing the number of justices, a move famously labeled as “court-packing,” although it never came to fruition due to lack of congressional support.
Presidential term limits solidified as an amendment post-FDR’s unprecedented four terms, creating a constitutional ceiling on presidential tenure—an amendment Trump has discussed circumventing for a hypothetical third term.
The Watergate scandal of the Nixon era is perhaps the quintessential example of checks and balances at play. Amid investigations into illegal activities linked to the White House, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon’s claims of executive privilege, leading to his resignation when Republican leaders warned of impending impeachment.
The Vietnam conflict also became a stage where Congress asserted its authority by limiting financial support for the extended conflict, emphasizing legislative checks over military engagements initiated by the president without formal war declarations.
In more recent terms, the Affordable Care Act faced its own judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress and President Barack Obama’s attempt to mandate states to expand Medicaid under threat of losing federal funding, showcasing checks and balances in protecting state autonomy. Despite continuous attempts by Republicans to overturn the law, significant portions remain intact, highlighting the system’s enduring resilience against the concentration of political power.