In fact, in view of the real and perceived threats to the nation's security following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the observations that "everything has changed" may well come to pass in the form of an unprecedented accumulation of powers in the executive branch.
Today, despite growing opposition from civil liberties advocates, President Bush continues to press Congress for even more authority under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act; if these two branches gang up on the American public, it may result in the need for action on the part of the Supreme Court on down the road. Some analysts believe that the president needs this (and even more) increased authority to help respond to the unique nature of the threats to national security today (Sheffer 252). Others, though, continue to maintain that any inordinate accumulation of power in one branch, particularly the executive, is a dangerous thing for the country:
Executive legislation, state control of popular liberties, military courts, and arbitrary executive action are governmental features attacked by the men who fought for freedom not because they were inefficient or unsuccessful, but because they are dangerous and oppressive. The reinstitution of any of these features is a perilous matter, a step to be taken only when the dangers to a free state will be greater if the dictatorial institution is not adopted. (Rossiter 48).
Conclusion
The research showed that just as the amount of civil rights that are afford American citizens have ebbed and flowed over the years in response to various threats to the national security, the amount of power wielded by one branch of the federal government compared to the others has also tended to swing from one extreme to...
The ink may be facing on the original document, but the constitutional system of checks and balances has served the country well over the years, notwithstanding its original intent to keep the popular will at bay for as long as possible. In the final analysis, the three contenders all came out of the ring bloody, but in view of the recent trends since September 11, 2001, the president has emerged as the temporary heavyweight champion among the three branches of government today. If and when the real and perceived threats to the nation's interests have been resolved, it would seem certain that the system of checks and balances would provide the impetus needed to once again diminish the powers of an "imperial presidency," but only time will tell if that can be accomplished since "everything has changed."
Works Cited
Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1990.
Clark, James N., R. Hartwell Gardner, H. Stephen Grace Jr., John E. Haupert, and Robert S. Roath. (2002). "From 'Tone at the Top' to 'Checks and Balances.'" the CPA Journal 72(3):63.
Goldwin, Robert a. And William a. Schambra. How Democratic Is the Constitution? Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1980.
Jasper, William F. (2003, August 25). "Who's Attacking the Constitution? Citing the Threat of Terrorism, a Cabal of Influential Saboteurs Is Proposing Assorted Amendments That Would Destroy Our Constitutional Checks and Balances." The New American 19(17):27.
Rossiter, C. Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in Modern Democracies, 1948. In Sheffer 253.
Sheffer, Martin S.…
