How the constitution relates to the branches of government

Which of the three branches of government (Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court) most closely resembles the expectations of the framers of the Constitution, and which of the three differs most from the framers’ expectations?

The framers of the constitution were a varied and eclectic mix of individuals. Although they often had their personal differences of opinion, many had very similar beliefs as it relates to government and the freedom of those it was to govern. Here, the tyranny of European rule had become very acute in the lives of many colonials at the time. Their rule, even from an ocean away was absolute and unwavering. Many colonials become furious at the excessive taxation and pilfering of resources for the land in which they had labored on for so long. For example the stamp act, which passed 1765, gave European government a large amount of authority to tax a variety of goods and services essential to the colonials at the time. In addition, this act was passed primary to pay the massive debts incurred by Britain during the war with France that occurred in prior years. The tax forced colonials to not only purchase British goods, but also to pay a tax on the items purchased. Thankfully, Benjamin Franklin was able to get the tax rescinded just a few months after its enactment. However, this proved to be the precursor to the overall framing of the three branches of government. This would later culminate into other invasive acts such as the Townshend acts of 1767, the Boston Massacre in 1770, and the Boston Tea Party in 1773. In each of these instances, an oppressive government looked to exert unilateral authority on colonials without having representation from the party subject to the laws or provisions. In addition, with the case with the Boston Massacre, British leaders were often given special treatment and provisions as compared to colonials. In many cases, these acts not only restricted the personal freedoms of others but also their economic freedoms. For example the Coercive Acts of 1774 restricted the movement of goods and services in repose to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. This ultimately impacted the economic freedoms of many colonials which again was a driving factor in the framing of the constitution (Bryce, 1997).

As a result, the branch of government that most accurately resembles the initial expectations of the framers of the constitution is Congress. Here, the Senate and House of Representatives provide a means to represent the people being governed. In addition, it provides a check and balance against an authoritative ruler, looking to leverage their power in an manner that is counter to the interest of the country as a whole. Congress, has the power to make laws, but does so at the behest of the people it represents. This is a critical function, and one that was not lost of the framers of the constitution. The Stamp Act, noting in the introduction, would not have passed without careful consideration and voting by the members elected to represent their respective jurisdictions. Here, debate, information gathering, and internal research by the congress would have provided a much better, albeit imperfect basis to evaluate the merit of the tax. This serves as a means to enact laws that provide the greatest good for society as oppose to having a foreign land dictate to colonials how to behave. It allows the residents to govern themselves in a manner that is best suited for their own well-being. As indicated by the various acts described in the introduction, the ability to govern themselves was lost in large part due to the pressing needs of the British. As a result, many of the laws, regulations, policies and procedures were heavily skewed towards the needs of the British as oppose to the needs of the colonials. The framers of the constitution recognized this, and therefore enacted a system in which the people being governed were properly represented.

In addition, the congress has the power to impeach and try federal officers, approve presidential appointments, conduct investigations. These three provisions are critical to maintain a check of obsessive use of power on the part of the president, who can in certain instances, act as authoritarian leader. We saw this to a certain degree with President Donald Trump, who often circumvented and undermined many of the conventional policies of government. The congress acts as a check on these abuses of power by being able to limit the presidents ability to force unqualified nomination that would only look to enhance his or her own power. The congress also has the ability to remove a president that looks to behave in a manner that harms society and American civilization overall. We again, so this with president Donald Trump who was impeached and is also undergoing litigation in relation to the January 6TH capital attack in which he promoted. In both of these instances Congress was the primary catalyst for these procedures being enacted. Not only does this activity look to punish former president Trump, it also acts a strong deterrent for future presidential candidates from acting in a manner that harms American civilization. As a result, congress most resembles the expectations of the framers of the constitution (Bond, 1998).

Likewise, the presidency least resembles the goals and ambitions of the framers of the constitution. As noted in the introduction, many of the act leading up to the industrial revolution were primarily perpetrated by one British leader. Not only were all of the acts mentioned heavily skewed toward the benefit of the British, they were often enacted without regard for those impacted. The president to a certain extent can embody these ordeals if selected unwisely. We have seen this on numerous occasions with Barrack Obama and Donald Trump. Here, the action of “Executive Order,” has given the president power to enact certain policies that have little regard for the congressional processes. These acts although well intentioned can be used to harm society if left unchecked similar to those of the acts mentioned in the introduction. As a result of this power and the high regard given to the presidency, it is the branch of government that least resembles the ambitions of the framers of the constitution (Osgood, 1997).