Branches of The U.S. Government: Developmental Influences

The interpretation referred to is simply one of personal perspective. There are those in the country who are under the belief the system of government is under attack from every quarter and needs to be staunchly defended without regard to individual right or circumstance. Conversely, there are those who believe the current state of the government is precisely where it should be considering the evolving needs and maturity of a nation experiencing this particular stage of growth. The matter of whether or not the current system of government is operating efficiently and as expected would depend on who one would ask and under what conditions.

To properly assess government effectiveness, one needs to consider adopting an entirely new set of grading criteria. Historically, the government has relied on information derived from inputs, not outcomes. Funding school precincts based on the number of students enrolled, welfare programs by the number of poor people eligible to collect benefits, police officers based on estimates of manpower required to fight reported crime. These are all reactive responses to issues and pay little attention to actual outcomes. An appropriate measure of effectiveness would be grading government with actual outcomes, and associate incentives and rewards to documented performance.

In order to better understand the circumstances of creating a strong federal government it is important to characterize the groups supporting each type of government, both at the advent of creation and in its contemporary incarnation, as it exists today. Prior to its acceptance, the Federalists supported a large and powerful governing body because they believed proper representation could be achieved without duly appointed representatives.

The Anti-Federalists, working under the impression that all people should have the opportunity to govern as well as be governed, were (and currently are) under the impression it would be impossible for much of the populace to have an opportunity to govern because of the number of people, hence robbing them of their rights.

All of the debate and consideration considered then and now boils the argument into two distinct camps: Those who believe that left alone, the public will only consider itself with private concerns, becoming corrupt and self-centered to the point of requiring laws to remain civil (Anti-Federalist), and those vaunting the positive and generous character of the populace to the point where they required little or no intervention from any avenue (Federalist).

Contentious debate from the Anti-Federalist camp resulted in the creation of the bill of rights, which served to reassure those against the proposed Constitution. In retrospect, the lack of a bill of rights at the outset, helped define the strong Constitution in operation today.

Boiling down the feeling of this debate into understandable and concrete terms can be difficult. A contemporary example of the ongoing struggle of Federalists and Anti-Federalists can be characterized be the study of a contemporary political subject, like the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Simply stated, certain members of Congress are proposing a constitutional amendment aiming to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Supporters claim the action is required immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being foisted upon the nation.

Federalists believe action must be taken on the national level in order to “protect” the populace from the possibility of same-sex marriages being allowed will negatively affect the public, while Anti-Federalists are under the impression this action is better served by the states protecting themselves through local legislation.

Given the epic considerations needed to account for at its inception, this author is at a loss as to how to create a more perfect Constitution. There were several reasons for the Founding Fathers to create a system of government divided into three branches, but no single reason was more important than avoiding any single branch from becoming too powerful. The basis for the structure of our government and the subsequent separation of powers is credited to the works of John Locke, who is considered the intellectual father of our country.

It is widely recognized the Fathers were not completely sure the proposed structure of the government envisioned was the most efficient possible. Having to ensure any policies set in place needed to be robust enough to stand up to a court, but also have the ability to be changed was a challenge still being verified to this day.