The workings of government

                To use the discourse of the English constitutional expert Walter Bagehot, the Constitution facilitates both the efficient and dignified parts of the Constitution. The efficient part alludes quite simply to the workings of government. These are specified in the enumerated powers of Article 1 (the legislature), Article 2 (the executive) and Article 3 (the judiciary). The dignified element relates to the rituals that reflect a system based upon the separation of powers. There are several illustrations of this point, such as the oath taken by the President during the inauguration ceremony. The Head of State is sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the steps of Capitol Hill. The President must also address Congress during the state of the union address. Having said this, the state of the union address might also be categorized in the effective part of the Constitution because policy initiatives and potential legislation are alluded to during the speech. The state of the union address derives from Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution. When considering each of the three branches of government, one must keep in mind the distinction between the enumerated and implied powers derived from the Constitution.

               

                The framers of the Constitution wrote in a manner that was shaped by the unhappy experience of colonial rule. Unfortunately, this means that the workings of government may well be hindered in some manner by the document. There are few better illustrations to consider than the disagreement over the budget in 2013. The Constitution separates powers between the legislature and the executive over a number of issues, one of which is the budget. Given the drift towards ideological polarization, it is very difficult to get a budget passed that caters for both Democrats and Republicans. Although the Constitution is not entirely to blame, it has certainly made the task more problematic. In seeking to avoid the abuse of power, the Constitution may well have undermined the effectiveness of government itself.

Another area to consider is the alleged wall of separation between the church and state. The framers were understandably concerned about the potential for religious persecution. For example, they added a religious test clause which stipulates that no-one may be denied public office on the basis of their religious affiliation. In a practical sense, no federal employee can be forced to adhere to or accept any religious doctrine. Liberals contend that the religious test clause helps to prevent the emergence of a theocracy within the states. Social conservatives however claim that the Constitution prevents religion taking its proper role within American society. It should also be noted that there are no religious-based parties in the states, unlike other comparable democracies within Europe.