Evaluate the view that checks and balances in the US Constitution are not effective

checks and balances 

• Introduction:

ü  Check for ‘limits’. (dates, specific election)

ü  Define ‘effective’. What are checks and balances for?    To ensure limited government while allowing government to function ie make laws, respond to crises.

 Why is this question being asked?  

Context: The presidency of Donald Trump is testing the effectiveness of the Constitution. In 2026, the effectiveness of the U.S. system of checks and balances is a subject of intense debate, with critics arguing that partisan polarization and executive overreach have severely undermined the constitutional framework. 

üState a viewpoint.- 

A Checks and balances no longer ensure limited government, and partisanship and political polarisation have led to political gridlock

OR

B There are significant challenges to the effectiveness of the constitutional checks and balances, but they remain largely effective.

If A, then begin paragraphs by acknowledging the B view

If B, begin paragraphs by acknowledging the A view

 A

 The view that checks and balances are ineffective is supported by evidence that, the Supreme Court has become a partisan body. Critics point to the administration prevailing in 21 out of 25 cases heard by the Supreme Court between January 2025 and early 2026 as evidence that the court may be acting more as a facilitator of executive power than a check upon it. Recent appointments to the Supreme Court, and particularly those made by President Trump, have succeeded in establishing a conservative majority which might be seen as compliant with his wishes, undermining its effectiveness as a check. His successful first-term nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, along with Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, created a conservative court majority. The Trump v The United States, judgment granted the president a level of immunity which could be seen as unprecedented and allowed the president to act beyond effective judicial checks.

However, the judiciary remains an effective check on unconstitutional actions. As recently as December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a major ruling against the executive, holding that the president lacked authority to federalise a state’s National Guard. Courts have also issued orders to pause federal employee layoffs and reinstate staff during government shutdowns. Where the Supreme Court have allowed the president to proceed, they have issued shadow dockets which retain the possibility of ruling against the president.

Mini Conclusion

While the Supreme Court undeniably have a Conservative majority and is currently inclined to take an expansive view of executive power, they remain a judicial body that acts within the limits of the Constitution and is still capable of acting as an effective check

Paragrph 2

Extreme polarisation and President Trump's domination of the Republican Party in Congress have limited effective oversight, undermined traditional Bipartisanship leading to repeated government shutdowns.  In 2025, House Democrats estimated that the executive withheld approximately $410 billion in congressionally approved funds, bypassing the legislative "power of the purse". The Rebublican majority have not asserted Congressional powers in relation to the DOGE mass firings of government employees and independent agency leaders and board members, sometimes in defiance of laws that protect them from removal without cause. The administration has invoked national emergencies to unilaterally implement initiatives normally requiring legislation, such as militarizing the southern border and imposing the "largest tariffs in a century" under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.  New directives require agencies to coordinate legal positions with the White House and repeal regulations deemed inconsistent with "Administration policy," and the Department of Justice has been directed to pursue investigations into Trump's opponents, such as Jack Smith, James Comey, and Letitia James.  Failure of bipartisanship over the extension of Obama Care subsidies led to a 40-day government shutdown. 

 While Congressional oversight is currently largely ineffective, due to the Republican majority, Congress continues to utilise its power to block or amend presidential agendas. For example, both houses passed the resolution calling for the release of the Epstein files. Republicans in Congress have also refused repeated calls from Trump for the nuclear option to end the filibuster. The Republican-led House narrowly blocked a resolution intended to limit Trump's war powers regarding Venezuela, with the motion failing in a 215-215 vote. Despite perids of grislock Congress passsed Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'.   

Mini conclusion: This demonstrates that Congress still retains the capacity to legislate and be an effective check; however,  it strongly suggests that Congress will re-establish a more effective check on the executive should the Democrats regain control of either or both houses.

3

The use of powers implied by the constitution such as executive orders and emergency powers, has significantly increased as a means to bypass Congress. By early 2026, dozens of executive orders had been used to unilaterally implement policy on tariffs, immigration, and federal hiring. Critics argue this creates an "imperial presidency" that effectively ignores legislative checks. Trump in line with long-term developments in the presidency, has largely used powers implied by the role of Commander in Chief at will for example, attacks on drug boats and the capture of Venezuela's president Maduro. The War Powers Resolution has often been more symbolic than a strong constraint with Congress granting the President broad discretionary power through Authorisations of Military Force.

 Despite justified claims of executive expansion, the system retains structural limits on the executive branch, such as the 22nd Amendment limiting the presidency to two elected terms and the possibility that executive orders and executive agreements may be reversed by future presidents.Biden reversed key Trump policies through targeted executive orders and  Trump, upon taking office, rescinded 78 of Biden's.  Also about a quarter of Trump's early executive orders faced legal challenges, reflecting contested durability and acceptance in courts. 

While aknowleding the incraesing use of implied powers by modern presidents, particularly Trump, they remain of limited durability.

 Notwithstanding the unprecedented use of presidential powers by Trump, Republican partisanship in Congress, and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the Constitution retains core democratic processes and legal sovereignty, which remain a significant check on the executive.  So, while the view that checks and balances are no longer effective it rests on the current potential for a "dangerous tipping point" as well as the ongoing dominance of partisanship,  the formal structures remain effective in ensuring limited government.

Things I could have meantioned but in the exam i have about 40 minutes. 

• Presidential pardon power is an unchecked power, and Trump has made great use of it. But it is unchecked by design- conventionally used sparingly but at times controversially. 

• Impeachment is the ultimate check- but has never been successful in removing a president ( Nixon resigned before he could be impeached)

• . The veto remains an effective check on Congress, but very difficult to override since it requires two thirds super majority in both chambers.

The essay above could easily have been argued from viewpoint A