Separation of Powers: A Critical Evaluation
339
that Congress (and to a lesser extent the States through the initiation of
amendments) cannot ultimately resolve, if it has the will to do it. Neither
the President nor the courts can make this claim. Constitutionally speaking, therefore, Congress is the most powerful branch, but in practice it
does not always assert itself and at times may even be overshadowed by
the President or the Supreme Court.
Today, as in 1787, the separation of powers doctrine is venerated and
praised as the mainstay of the Constitution. It has never been targeted for
attack by any political reform movement and has traditionally enjoyed a
broad consensus of support among the American people. But it has not
been immune from criticism. From time to time there have been outcries
of disappointment and frustration because the American political process does not always respond immediately to every call for action. Some
critics have charged that separation of powers weakens the Federal government, and that the built-in tension and conflict among the branches
produces political paralysis. In today’s world, they argue, where the
United States is embroiled in one global crisis after another in the seemingly endless struggle against terrorism and war, a more harmonious relationship between the President and Congress would allow the United
States to act with greater certainty and dispatch.
It is true, of course, that the separation of powers slows the pace of
government. More than once the United States Senate has blocked a
treaty si