:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/checks-and-balances.asp-final-e7a1ad5d6c3b474c815c5d4761517105.png)
Honestly, the phrase "checks and balances" usually feels like something ripped straight out of a dusty eighth-grade civics textbook. You remember the diagram. Three boxes, some arrows, and a teacher droning on about branches of government. But if you actually look at how power functions in the real world, the function of checks and balances is basically the only thing keeping the whole experiment from turning into a total disaster.
It’s messy.
It's not some elegant clockwork mechanism where everything clicks into place perfectly. Instead, it’s a constant, grinding friction. Imagine three people trying to drive the same car, but one has the steering wheel, one has the brakes, and the third controls the gas. That’s the American system. It’s designed to be frustrating because the alternative—one person having all three—tends to end with people getting thrown in jail for no reason.
What the Function of Checks and Balances Actually Looks Like
At its core, the function of checks and balances is about one thing: preventing the "tyranny of the majority" (or the minority, for that matter). James Madison, who was arguably the brainiest of the Founding Fathers, wrote in Federalist No. 51 that "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." He wasn't some wide-eyed optimist who thought politicians would be nice to each other. He knew they’d be power-hungry. So, he built a system where the only way to get anything done is to convince the other guys—who also want power—to let you do it.
Take the veto. This is the most famous example. The President can just say "no" to a bill. But then Congress can say "actually, we don't care" and override it with a two-thirds vote. This isn't just a rule on a page; it happens. In 2016, for instance, Congress overrode President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). It was the only override of his entire eight years. It showed that even the "most powerful man in the world" can be totally sidelined if enough people in the legislative branch agree on something.
The Court's Role in This Messy Dance
Then you've got the Supreme Court. They have this thing called "judicial review." Fun fact: the Constitution doesn't actually say they have this power. They basically gave it to themselves in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. Chief Justice John Marshall argued that if the Constitution is the supreme law, and a regular law contradicts it, the Court has to pick the Constitution.
This is a massive check.
👉 See also: Who's the Next Pope: Why Most Predictions Are Basically Guesswork
A President can sign a law, Congress can pass it, but nine people in robes can say, "Nope, this doesn't work with the original blueprint." We saw this clearly in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). President Truman tried to seize the nation's steel mills during the Korean War because of a strike. He thought he had the power as Commander-in-Chief. The Supreme Court basically told him he was overstepping. They checked his ambition. It was a huge moment that defined the limits of executive power during wartime.
Why It Feels Like Nothing Ever Happens
If you’ve ever been annoyed that the government can't seem to pass a simple budget or fix a road without three years of arguing, you’re feeling the function of checks and balances working exactly as intended. It is built for gridlock. The goal isn't efficiency; the goal is stability.
Efficiency is for dictatorships.
In a system where power is concentrated, things happen fast. But those things are often terrible for anyone who isn't in charge. By forcing the House (which represents the people's immediate whims), the Senate (which is supposed to be more deliberate), and the President to all agree, the system ensures that only the most broadly supported ideas actually become reality.
Usually.
Sometimes, this backfires. We see it in "government shutdowns." That’s the dark side of checks and balances. When the branches refuse to compromise, the gears of the machine just stop. It’s the price we pay for not having a King.
✨ Don't miss: Recent Obituaries in Charlottesville VA: What Most People Get Wrong
The Modern Shift: Executive Orders and the "Check" That Isn't
Lately, people have been worried that the function of checks and balances is getting weaker. Presidents from both parties have started using executive orders to bypass Congress. If Congress won't pass a law, the President just writes a memo that acts like one.
Is this a failure of the system?
Sort of. But then the "check" moves to the courts. We see this constantly now—a President signs an order, and within hours, a federal judge in Hawaii or Texas issues an injunction to stop it. The battleground just shifts. The tension remains.
Even the bureaucracy itself acts as a check. There's this idea of the "Deep State," which is often used as a conspiracy theory, but in reality, it’s just millions of career civil servants who know the rules. If a President tells an agency to do something illegal, those workers—protected by civil service laws—can say no. That’s a "bottom-up" check that the Founders didn't necessarily plan for, but it’s become a huge part of how the modern state functions.
Real-World Consequences of a Broken System
When the function of checks and balances fails, history gets ugly. Look at the 1930s in Germany. The Weimar Republic had checks and balances, but they were fragile. When the Reichstag (the parliament) became paralyzed by infighting, the President used emergency powers to bypass them. Eventually, those emergency powers became the only way the country was run, and well, we know how that ended.
In the U.S., the most dangerous moments have been when one branch gets too cozy with another. During the "Red Scare" in the 1950s, Congress and the Executive branch were often in lockstep, trampling on civil liberties while the courts were slow to intervene. It took years for the judicial branch to finally start "checking" the excesses of McCarthyism.
🔗 Read more: Trump New Gun Laws: What Most People Get Wrong
The Social Media Factor
We can't talk about checks and balances in 2026 without mentioning the "Fourth Estate"—the media—and now, social media. While not a formal government branch, the ability of the public to see what’s happening in real-time is a massive informal check.
If a Senator does something corrupt, it’s on TikTok in five minutes.
This creates a different kind of pressure. It’s a social check. It forces the formal branches to act because they know the voters are watching. Of course, this also leads to "performative politics" where politicians care more about the clip than the policy, but that’s a different problem entirely.
How to Actually Use This Knowledge
Understanding the function of checks and balances isn't just for winning trivia nights. It's about knowing where the levers of power are. If you want to change something, you need to know which branch to pressure.
- Want a law changed? Focus on the House and Senate. They hold the purse strings.
- Think a law is unfair? That's a court battle. You need lawyers and advocates who understand constitutional law.
- Hate a specific policy implementation? That’s the Executive branch. You look at the federal agencies and the President.
Don't fall for the trap of thinking the President is a King. Most of the stuff people blame the President for is actually the fault of a gridlocked Congress. And most of the stuff people praise the President for was actually enabled by a supportive legislative branch.
Practical Steps for the Concerned Citizen
If you're worried about the balance of power, there are things you can actually do besides complaining on the internet.
- Watch your local government. Checks and balances exist at the state and city level, too. Often, your local city council has more "checks" on the Mayor than Congress has on the President.
- Support judicial independence. Whether you like a specific ruling or not, the ability of judges to rule without fear of being fired by the President is the cornerstone of the whole system.
- Diversify your news. If you only watch one "side," you’ll only see the "checks" performed by the other side as "obstruction." When your side does it, they call it "oversight." It’s important to see the difference.
- Engage with the "Comment Period." When executive agencies propose new rules, they are legally required to take public comments. Most people ignore this. It is a direct way to "check" the bureaucracy before a rule even takes effect.
The function of checks and balances is basically the "fail-safe" of democracy. It’s not meant to make things easy. It’s meant to make things hard, because when it’s hard to use power, it’s harder to abuse it. It’s a system built on the assumption that people are flawed, selfish, and ambitious—and it uses those exact traits to keep the whole thing standing. It's brilliant, it’s annoying, and it’s the only reason the US government has lasted as long as it has.