Power corrupts. It's a cliché because it's true. When you look back at the origins checks & balances rely on, you realize the American Founders weren't just being philosophical or ivory-tower intellectuals. They were actually quite cynical. They didn't trust you, they didn't trust me, and they certainly didn't trust themselves with a blank check to run a country.
History is basically a long, bloody list of people getting too much power and then ruining everything. The guys sitting in Philadelphia in 1787 knew this better than most because they’d just finished a war against a King they viewed as a tyrant. But here’s the kicker: they also feared the "mob." They were stuck between a rock and a hard place—trying to build a government strong enough to actually do things, like collect taxes and defend borders, but weak enough that it couldn't turn around and crush the people.
Where the Idea Actually Came From
People usually point to Baron de Montesquieu. He was a French judge and philosopher who wrote The Spirit of the Laws in 1748. Montesquieu looked at the British system and thought he saw a perfect division of power between the King, Parliament, and the courts. Interestingly, he actually kind of misunderstood how the British system worked at the time, but his "mistake" became the blueprint for the U.S. Constitution.
James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, was obsessed with this. In Federalist No. 51, he famously wrote that "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." It’s such a gritty, realistic way to look at politics. He wasn't hoping for virtuous leaders who would always do the right thing. He was betting on the fact that politicians are selfish. By giving each branch of government the tools to block the others, he ensured that if one group tried to grab all the cookies, the other two groups would smack their hands away—not out of kindness, but out of their own desire to keep the cookies for themselves.
The Three-Way Tug of War
The origins checks & balances established weren't just about three separate rooms in a building. It was about specific, functional "veto" points.
✨ Don't miss: Who Has Trump Pardoned So Far: What Really Happened with the 47th President's List
Think about the President. The President is the Commander in Chief, but he can't actually declare war; only Congress can do that. He can sign a treaty, but it’s basically a piece of scrap paper unless two-thirds of the Senate agrees with him. Then you have the Veto. If Congress passes a law the President hates, he can kill it. But—and this is the cool part—Congress can then "veto the veto" if they can get a two-thirds majority. It’s a constant, exhausting back-and-forth.
Then there’s the money.
Congress holds the "power of the purse." This is arguably the biggest check of all. The President can have the grandest plans in the world for a new agency or a war, but if Congress refuses to pay for it, it doesn't happen. Period. We see this play out today in those high-stakes debt ceiling standoffs and government shutdown threats. It’s messy. It’s frustrating. But according to the origins checks & balances logic, that frustration is the system working exactly as intended. If the government is moving slow, it means it’s harder for them to do something stupid or dangerous on a whim.
The Judiciary’s Late Entry
You might be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court’s biggest power—judicial review—isn't actually spelled out clearly in the Constitution. In the beginning, the courts were seen as the "least dangerous branch." That changed in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.
🔗 Read more: Why the 2013 Moore Oklahoma Tornado Changed Everything We Knew About Survival
Chief Justice John Marshall basically grabbed power for the court by declaring that the Supreme Court has the final say on whether a law is constitutional. It was a bold move. It effectively completed the triangle. Now, you had a branch that didn't have an army (like the President) and didn't have the money (like Congress), but it had the "judgment." They could look at a law passed by the people's representatives and signed by the President and just say, "No."
Real-World Stress Tests
The system isn't just theoretical; it has nearly broken several times.
Take Andrew Jackson. He famously ignored the Supreme Court when they ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation in Worcester v. Georgia. Jackson basically said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Since the Court has no police force, Jackson went ahead with the forced removal of Native Americans. It was a failure of checks and balances because the Executive branch simply refused to be checked.
Then you have the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt was frustrated that the Supreme Court kept striking down his New Deal programs. His solution? The "court-packing" plan. He wanted to add more justices to the court who would agree with him. This was a massive power grab. But the check worked—not through a court ruling, but through public outcry and Congressional resistance. Even members of his own party thought he was going too far. The plan died, and the balance was preserved.
💡 You might also like: Ethics in the News: What Most People Get Wrong
Why We Struggle With It Today
We live in an era of executive orders. When Congress is gridlocked and can't pass a law, Presidents (of both parties) tend to use their pens to bypass the legislative process. This feels like a breakdown of the original intent.
The Framers expected Congress to be the most powerful branch. Today, the Executive branch has grown into a massive bureaucracy that the Founders wouldn't recognize. When we talk about the origins checks & balances rely on, we have to acknowledge that the "balance" has shifted significantly toward the White House.
There's also the issue of political parties. Madison thought that branches would fight each other. He didn't fully anticipate that a Senator might be more loyal to their political party than to the Senate as an institution. If the President and the majority of Congress are in the same party, the "check" often disappears. They start working together as a team rather than acting as a curb on each other's power.
Actionable Insights for the Modern Citizen
Understanding this history isn't just for trivia night. It changes how you engage with the news and your government.
- Look for the "Why" in Gridlock: Next time you’re annoyed that a bill is stalled in committee or a court has blocked an executive order, remember that this is the system’s "safety mode." It is designed to prevent rapid, radical change without broad consensus.
- Focus on Local and Legislative Races: Because we focus so much on the Presidency, we forget that Congress is supposed to be the primary check. If you want to influence the balance of power, your vote for a Representative or Senator often carries more structural weight than the vote for the top of the ticket.
- Monitor the Judiciary: Pay attention to how lower courts are ruling on federal regulations. The "check" often starts at the district level long before it reaches the Supreme Court.
- Demand Legislative Responsibility: Encourage your representatives to pass actual laws rather than relying on the President to issue executive orders. When Congress abdicates its power to the Executive, the balance of the entire country shifts toward a more centralized, and potentially more volatile, authority.
The system is only as strong as the people's insistence that it be followed. If we stop caring about the boundaries between the branches, the boundaries eventually disappear. The origins of our system aren't found in a love for bureaucracy, but in a profound, healthy fear of what happens when one person gets to make all the rules.