Against this point however, is the idea that Congress, and the President have enumerated powers, this means that they are all listed. They therefore have no other powers, but the ones listed are open to interpretation, for example one of the powers of congress is: to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among several states and Indian tribes. (Article 1 Section 8) This creates bad government because it means that lots of time is spent over interpreting what this actually means, or what the forefathers wanted it to mean. This hinders government because they waste time when they could be doing more important things.
A more striking argument that good government is promoted would be the principle of the separation of powers. These do not allow one branch to become too strong, as they must keep any eye on what the other two branches are doing (Partial Agency). It enables the legislation that is made to be checked thoroughly by each branch, it also compels all three branches to work together to make sure that they do what is best for America, and that is what the founding fathers wanted. They were especially worried about the president becoming a tyrant. The separation of powers and checks and balances make sure that this cannot happen. It also ensures that no radical legislation will ever be passed in the US.
A strong opposition to this though, is that the separation of powers does not promote radical legislation, and although it is only the minority that see this as useful it is still a real opposition to the idea of the constitution promoting good government. No radical legislation means that there will be no huge change in America ever because the constitution does not allow it. The Checks and Balances can also be seen as negative as it could sometimes mean that instead of focusing on what the specific branch is doing, it is more interested in what the other two are doing, suggesting that legislation is toned down to make sure it is passed and also that lots of time is wasted checking the other branches.
The most significant way that the US constitution does promote good government is the fact that it is able to change, and it is able adjust according to the times. It is adaptable and flexible. For example in the late 1800s the Supreme Court voted that segregation was OK however 5o years or so later, the Supreme Court changed its mind. This was because the founding fathers knew people’s attitudes towards things would change, so they made the constitution able to evolve. In this way the constitution is key in promoting good government because it means that it can evolve but the constitution is also firm and difficult to amend.
In contrast to this, many would argue that the constitution has no flexibility at all and that it is to firm and set in stone. It has not been amended enough to adapt, it has only been amended 27 times in 200 years and 10 of those amendments were right at the beginning of its establishment. This too many people would not seem flexible but in fact the very opposite. It is also extremely difficult to amend as you need 2/3 majority in both houses of congress to vote in favour of the amendment. In contrast to the UK where you simply need it to pass through both houses with any majority. This could be seen as firm but it does show the difficulty in evolving the constitution.
To conclude to the constitution does promote good government because it is flexible, we must bear in mind if something is so important to the development of America then it should not have too much problem being passed as an Amendment, is also beneficial because the constitution is firm as it does not allow change to easily and only the most important amendments become passed, and these are the ones that are necessary.
by
jacobcross (student)
