The American Government, just like other governments, do not originate with the intent of providing a "Checks -and- Balances" formula which includes the populace in the initial design. They are designed to minimize the collective effort of the people to effect any real change. Governments provide the illusion of being fair and equal by displaying the logic of a Checks -and- Balances formula integrated within its structure...for itself. The people must use the force of protest and of revolution to perform a "Checks -and- Balances" provision which includes itself. Stated as such, the designs of present governments can be faulted for effecting laws which do not in fact have the support of the people. Compliance with a law does not mean support thereof.
And comply, the people do... Even though they may be subjected to hardships by way of measurements -of- eligibility which exclude them from receiving even the most minimal level of "Redistributed Equality". Very often governments, in their inception, ostracise one or more others through various forms of disenfranchisement such as excluding them from an ability to vote. Though the people may later gain the standard of equality that enables them with a right to vote which becomes by way of amendment to a Bill of Rights; the original Bill of Rights gives evidence of how prejudiced and short-sighted the originators were. And yet, this commonly understood acknowledgment is itself the prejudice and short-sightedness of a later age... of our age.
While most can see the need for a Revolution from time to time when a government "gets out of hand", it is not acknowledged that the reason for the occasional usage of a Revolution by the people is because governments are not designed with a structure enabling the people themselves to institute changes long before conditions become so intolerable; that it is only by way of a Revolution that some semblance of interventionist change can take place.
The commonly used structure of a government, no matter how it is named, is one in which the collective will of the people is minimized and those in authoritative positions becomes maximized.
Like the three upper right hand corner screen elements of a computer: minimize, maximize, or Revolution... The collective will of the people is afforded with only extreme measures of applicability. Though the people may revolt and demand the adoption of a Bill -of- Rights, which is a redistribution of an equality standard... to equalize laws, such an observation when put into practice, is used as a means to nullify the people into a subordinate entity which permits authority to maximize its dominance under the guise of a Checks -and- Balances system which is little more than a game of shells (or cups). With respect to the American tripartite structure of Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches, often times displayed with a carnival atmosphere, the people are led to believe it is the best and only game to be played. The sincere intent of Democracy becomes an unwitting ally and participates as a side-show sleight-of-hand trickster moving some rule, measure, provision or law as if it were a ball beneath one of three shells or cups that the public is "encouraged", by way of law, to choose and be obligated to the dictates of those whose domain is a respective cup. It is time for the people to move beyond the antiquated Washington carnival atmosphere that is nostalgically viewed within guidelines of traditionalized sentiment that manipulates the public to obeisantly respect.
Unfortunately, too few people can make the analogy between a three-shells game and the three branches of government. They have been taught through a public education process of propaganda to see something other than the reality to which they are actually subjected to brought about by those who gravitate towards positions of government and do not have the necessary acumen for effecting a greater equality for the people. A greater level of equality is kept from the people who do not want to share their larger proportion, and will do whatever they can to minimize changes which would disrupt the uneven balance. In their logic, and the practiced logic of present large nations, governing processes view the people as the minor premise and itself not only the major premise, but its concluding arbiter. In one instance it may describe the people as the little bear, with itself as Goldilocks... and the Big Bear described, unaffectionately, as Revolution. Indeed, American democracy, by way of its governing adherents; would, if necessary, be represented as the three little pigs and the people as a voracious wolf. Or itself as the Pied Piper playing three (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) notes and the people as the rats. Such is the formula inherent in the design of the present government.
The Pied Piper model only works within a given population. It is not needed for very small communities, and is already being found to be ineffective for a growing one. The Pied Piper's three notes can not lead the people to an unrealized land as it did to the children when the authority of the town of Hamlin refused to pay the Piper for its services. Only so many people can fit through the passageway of present Democracy's standard of Equality, meaning that many will have suffer an increasing level of disparity. An increasing population subjected to a limited level of resources means that increasing standards of equality only forestalls the inevitability of lost abundance... unless measures for dealing with an increasing population are taken... or steps are taken for searching elsewhere in the galaxy for increasing yields of resources and availability to them.
Very often intentionally, and very often unconsciously, governments are designed and refashioned with an ideal of inherent inequality... irrespective of Constitutions and Bills -of- Rights. While the logic of a "Checks -and- Balances" system of governance sounds good to those who are taught to measure equality in this manner; it is a means and method which also expects the people to obligate themselves to accepting a standard which, for the most part, marginalizes the populace into being a token of itself. The participation of the public is maximized by way of taxation and a service-to-one's-country presence, but is otherwise minimized by a voting system that does not bring about actual large-scale, visible improvements when one or another political choice of the people is effected. The people rightly distinguish the presence of an ineffectual system of presumed equality because it excludes an equal participation... The results of voting are like large numbers of voters being disinherited from having a right to vote in a system where their vote actually amounts to a purposeful count and is not neglected as if being subjected to a practiced standard of negligibility.
The idea of a "Checks -and- Balances" system of governance was based on a "Separation of Powers" theory developed by Charles Montesquieu as outline in his 1748 work entitled "The Spirit of the Laws". While the idea was insightful for the day and age, which presented, on paper, a meaningful logic for curtailing abuses in government, it has been shown to be an imperfect system. All too often one or another branch of the American government exercises a lawful abuse of the "Checks and Balances" guideline to perpetrate an obstacle to needed legislation... for which the people suffer because of. While this event occurs most often between the Executive and Legislative branches, the Judicial branch instigates its own abuse of power within its own provisions of ability with respect to hearing a case, returning a case to a lower court, stalling for more information, or intentionally interpreting the law to coincide with a particular political bias of those who appointed them. Whereas some observers conclude that such occasions are the price the public must abide by for having such a system... the public all too often resigns itself to not look for the adoption of a better system... one which utilizes the enhanced standard of including itself in the Equality equation... such as is being proposed by the usage of a Cenocracy. It took thirty years and a Revolution before Montesquieu's ideas were put into practice, perhaps in a like fashion... a Cenocracy will ensue.
The presence usage of a Checks -and- Balances system is a legitimated program of tools by which the public can be fatigued into accommodating itself to a lower standard of equality than that intentioned in a Bill of Rights. Such a Bill is used most often as a type of "Spiritual Entrepreneur" like a spiritual adviser when equality is spoken of. An actual measure of equality is observed only during moments of public scrutiny for a given occurrence. And yet this too is rendered to a equanimity in accord with those in charge of determining a particular standard of expression. In such circumstances it is thought to be a wise usage of a checks -and- balances provision in order to prevent abuses exerted by the people, such as in the case of a lynch mob. While this on the surface seems a laudable quality to extol upon a lop-sided model of governance which minimizes what a public can do for itself, it actually is an extraction, a taking of something out of context, if you will, ...the position of the public. Whereas a group might well resort to the usage of a lynch-mob mentality for a given subject, this does not mean the whole of the public would act likewise if and when it were subject to a similarity of circumstances. Pitting the public against a given law as if the law was an under-dog which automatically means it is a David against a Goliath and must therefore win... is a logic of falsified vulnerability against those who choose to embody and thereby represent such a law.
American Democracy, like so many other forms of democracy being practiced elsewhere, is indeed a lop-sided form of equality, justice and liberty. It ludicrously practices a presumed "government of, by, and for the people" by way of an inclusionary logic which minimizes the role of the public's effectiveness to dole out the formula it sees best for itself; and permits a few selected individuals to promote the public's many causes as they see fit. Irrespective of sincere intentions, Representatives very often do not encapsulate a single individual's complaint as that against something or someone whose actions do or can effect multiple others. Whereas a single person's complaint may seem to be self-centered, it may concern a situation that does or has the probability of effecting unsuspecting others. If a Representative receives multiple complaints regarding different government agencies, the Representative must resort to some type of priotization of received complaints... such as the quantity or quality of complainants (complaintants), their capacity to understand a given problem, and their understanding as well as skill in utilizing their resources.
There is no standing "Checks -and- Balances" provision which governs the behavior of individual Representatives in their effectiveness with their constituency. In other words, analogously put, there is no one investigating the investigators. Those who may be assigned to do so typically are part of the same organization such as the Internal Affairs division in a police force. But such forms of examination typically look for criminality and not ineffectiveness. There is no one who is examining the effectiveness of a government agency or Congressional Representative because they are left to themselves to effect a self-examination... like an unsupervised employee who is permitted to perform their own evaluation for purposes of benefits, raises and promotions. That which they might list as qualitative activities of accomplishment may in effect have little import for a particular constituency... because they feel it has far more need for a greater number of people outside their hired-for purview assignment... like a janitor with dreams of becoming a plant manager who does not attend to their assigned job and instead attempts to interject their views and behavior into seeming larger issues and concerns.
The "Separation of Powers" idea promoted by Montesquieu and adopted by those who initiated the 3-divisions of government design in use by America, failed to include the people as one of those "powers" which could effectively deal with not only a government's largest divisions, but also individual agencies and agents thereof. The tri-partite design of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches effectively dis-included the people an equal share of governing power in the equation. The framers of the government failed to look far and deep enough into history to make an actively conscious note of the fact that Revolutions of government are made by the populace seeking a greater level of power to effect its own governance, and are not made by governments against the people. Government actions against the people typically occur by covert obfuscations of truth which effect different forms of plausible deniability.
While governments do not engage in Revolutions against a people, agencies such as the C.I.A. or some agent in concert there-with might well attempt to provoke disconcerting events in order to effect some desired outcome that the government might they use to justify its actions... even though one government such as France, through its military, might well place itself into a position that acts like an undetectable agent of another government so that the other government can come to its aid because elements within the government have an ulterior purpose to satisfy greed. For example, France's military presence in Vietnam deliberately instigated unsettling circumstances which provided an array of excuses for the U.S. government to come to its aid by way of a "police action", though its military were never designated a police force. Military intervention required resources supplied by companies tied to those who contributed to the campaigns of several politicians. Anyone, even a President, who stood in the way of those whose greed insisted their campaign contributions be returned many fold, would have to be stopped... even assassinated... like John Kennedy was. And anyone, such as a brother who thought as he did and might come to power, would likewise have to be killed.
The purported Checks -and- Balances provision is presented as the epitome of a governing Equality, but is in fact an efficient means of ostracizing the public from exercising an equal share of governing power. However, in a government that is supposed to be "Of, By and For" the people, the people should have the dominant form of equality. Whereas the Checks -and- Balances formula gives the impression of being a valuable piece of logic which has no equal, given the constraints of its application to human affairs effected by humans from different walks of life... its temperaments, its biases, and varying perspectives... it is a rock, scissors, paper formula that needs not a forth element, but an increase in its flexibility to be effected by an over-riding "power of the people". It is a three -to- one ratio and not a formula -of- four. It is a principle of guidance to effect overall behavior used by nature, and that some might claim to be a rule-of-thumb used by God. For example, in genetics we find a recurrence of the three amino acids Adenosine - Cytosine - Quanine in both DNA and RNA. Yet the distinction of quality between the two arises by either the usage of Thymine or Uracil. Hence, we find a three -to- one ratio component for many forms of life though it is referred to as a triplet code. Life is said to have been made possible by God.
Clearly we find a preeminent biological precedent for including the same pattern into our governing structure. To not do so may well be thought to represent a rejection of God's word— with monumental consequences. In other words, to say that a country trusts in God is wholly different from practicing the word of God as can be detected in nature. If a three -to- one ratio is good enough for God to use in determining the life of humanity, than it should be good enough for humanity in using it to determine its role in-line with the dictates of God. Whereas God provides free will to humanity, it is up to humanity whether to accept or reject the assistance of God. God speaks to humanity is simple terms, because humanity is not yet ready for more complex forms of comprehension. The word of God is revealed in meted-out stages of proportioned development so that humanity can adapt, over-time, in accordance with. Too much, too soon, too often, is avoided.
A further theological excursion reveals that the idea of "three persons, capacities aspects or qualities in one", can be viewed as a variation of the three -to- one ratio theme. Whether or not one believes in the concept of a "Holy Trinity", regardless of which religion or philosophy is examined, the structure of a "three" as a singular unit can be acknowledged. The existence of external interpretations, definitions and analysis represents a component outside the formulaic expression... like a chess player who is an external and dominant functionality of the chess pieces which can be moved in one of three ways... horizontally, diagonally, or vertically. It is an expressed enterprise of logic like that of a philosopher's Major Premise - Minor Premise - Conclusion which does not effectively act on its own without an external function such as an attending philosopher. Likewise, a three-structure government is of little value without the existence of an external component called the public. Yet it is process which is determining the role of the public and not the other way around. To permit a process and procedure to determine the role of a person or larger public is to serve itself at the expense of the public and not the other way around.
Guidelines are fine so long as they serve the people and not the people serving the guidelines as if being subjected to a Monarchy. The present Checks -and- Balances formula is a structure of logic which puts itself before the will of the people. It is a metaphor for the idea of a Monarchial structure of governance that those in the past had not yet grown away from its influence as an imprint on the consciousness of the public. It was an imprint which has resurfaced in America and elsewhere under varying guises. From the single (King) to a triple (branches of power) which both effectively excluded the public from a dominant position in functionality, we must include the public by implementing a three -to-one ratio Cenocracy. The public does not seek its day in court, but its lifetime in affecting the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government to submit to its collective will.
Again and again and again, with different models, there is some proprietary measure incorporated as that which defines the actions of the whole... yet in America's form of Democracy and elsewhere, this proprietary measure is minimized to a standard of accepted negligibility in its actual effectiveness. The American brand of Democracy is a "Peoples Government" in name, but not in practice. The three branches of government are viewed as three aspects or qualities of the people, but the whole of the people is lacking its own singular representative model. For example, in baseball, though Home Plate is one of the bases, it is separate and superior to the other bases which are separately, but collectively identified by enumeration: 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base... The designation "Home plate" or "Home Base" is not enumerated. It is not only distinguished in name but in deed, by providing the provision of expressed overall accountability... The first three are separate but equal, while they are collectively beholden to the accountability of another. Such is the same provision which should be alloted in the practice of a government. The three branches should be separate but equal and beholden to the actions of the public... which simplistically illustrates a Cenocratic form of government.
In the current form of "Checks -and- Balances" form of government, the people are minimized... are thrust into a role of negligibility in functionality, though are designated in word as having prominence, preference and presence of mind. It's negligibility is sometimes referred to as acceptable losses, collateral damage, or necessary sacrifices for some purported greater good, goal or golden god-endowed purpose. Yet those making such comments do not see themselves in the role of experiencing a similar loss of position, property, or perpetuity of self. Though they may not say it, may not even think it, and even deny that such a state of affairs exists, their actions reflect this course nonetheless. It is a course the people themselves have little, if any say so about one way or another because they are chained to the hull of a three-tiered ship and asked to tow the line to the din of a patriotic drum whose authority are bent on using a full ahead, ramming speed, no matter what the cost to lives and property. Because the ship is being used more and more as a vessel to conduct war, however so named, its officers on deck know of little else how to effect an historical role for themselves. A war, or even the threat of war, real or imagined, is enough to provide the incentive to justify, rationalize, warrant, deceive, misconstrue, lie, cheat, steal, and all manner of deeds that a time of peace would not want to disguise.