Framers' Constitution: Gridlock Considered?

Political gridlock, a term that entered the American political lexicon after the 1980 elections, refers to a stalemate between controlling parties in the government that prevents it from acting or passing laws. While gridlock may be a frequent consequence of the US Constitution, it is not accurate to say that the framers preferred it. The framers, dissatisfied with their governing experiment after the Revolution, sought a strong national government that could govern—deliberately and efficiently, albeit insulated from the passions of popular majorities. They deliberately created a system of checks and balances, and a type of gridlock, to keep the federal government small and less obtrusive in the lives of US citizens.

Explore related products

Founding Fathers: The Essential Guide to the Men Who Made America

$14.77 $19.99

Founding Fathers

$19 $19.98

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

$9.92 $19

America's Founding Fathers (TV Series)

$2.99

Founding Fathers [DVD]

$8.57 $11.98

America The Story of Us (TV Series)

$2.99

The framers' intentions

The Framers Intentions

The framers of the US Constitution were educated men of their time, who believed in the capacity of human intellect for discovery and problem-solving. They did not consider themselves infallible and thus created a framework with the built-in capacity for amendment. They assumed that the country and its challenges would inevitably change and deliberately gave future generations the ability to reshape the constitution accordingly.

The framers were dissatisfied with their governing experiment after the Revolution and fearful of rebellious debtors in the states. They sought a strong national government that could govern—deliberately and efficiently, albeit insulated from the passions of popular majorities. They did not prefer gridlock, but they did deliberately create a system of checks and balances, and a type of gridlock, to keep the federal government small and less obtrusive in the lives of US citizens.

The framers were particularly concerned about the potential for a "tyranny of the majority". They believed that separating the powers of government would make it harder for it to pass oppressive laws and for the majority to infringe on the rights of minorities. For example, if the House passed legislation that discriminated against Islamic Americans, the Senate could block it, or the President could veto it, or the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional. Thus, a tendency toward gridlock was seen as a good thing.

However, it is important to note that the framers could not have predicted how American culture and politics would change over time. In their day, politics was the topic for well-educated and landed white men of society, and they expected that with broadened franchise, there would also be broadened access to education, and a natural tendency toward serious consideration of politics and good government.

The two-party system

However, political parties emerged in the 1790s, with the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist groups in Parliament, led by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, respectively. The Federalist Party collapsed in 1812, and the Anti-Federalist Party, also known as the Democratic-Republican Party, split into two parties in the 1830s: the Democrats and the Republicans. Since the early 1900s, these two parties have solidified the two-party system, with occasional representation from third parties such as the Green Party, Constitution Party, and Libertarian Party.

The Framers likely did not consider themselves infallible and created a framework with the built-in capacity for amendment. They expected change and gave future generations the ability to reshape the Constitution accordingly. While the Constitution does create a system of checks and balances, it is important to note that the Framers sought a strong national government that could govern efficiently, learning from the mistakes of previous republics.

Checks and balances

The United States Constitution's system of checks and balances is a deliberate creation of the Framers to keep the federal government small and less obtrusive in the lives of US citizens. The system was designed to prevent the government from oppressing people by making it difficult to pass bad policies. The separation of powers makes it harder for the government to pass oppressive laws and protects the rights of minorities. For instance, if the House passed legislation that discriminated against Islamic Americans, the Senate could block it, or the President could veto it, or the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional.

However, the system of checks and balances has also led to gridlock in the US government, where politicians cannot agree on the provisions of a bill, and parties work against each other to block legislation until their demands are met. This gridlock is a frequent consequence of the Constitution, but it does not mean that the Framers preferred it. The Framers were dissatisfied with their governing experiment after the Revolution and wanted a strong national government that could govern efficiently.

The two-party system prevalent in the US encourages disagreement and legislative stalling because each party has agendas that they attempt to force on each other during the legislative process. Both the House and the Senate rarely have an even split between parties, and each entity requires a majority to pass legislation. Due to the stances each party takes on the issues being addressed, no agreements can be reached because no one wants to concede or compromise.

Additionally, arcane practices such as a filibuster enable a small minority of actors to hold up legislation indefinitely. A filibuster is when a senator or group of senators use the concept of unlimited debate to stall the vote on a bill. Rule 22 allows the Senate to invoke cloture, the only means to end a filibuster, which requires a supermajority of 60 senators. The Senate majority leader can also cause gridlock by refusing to bring bills before the Senate, which is within their power as defined by the US Constitution.

While some view gridlock as a negative consequence of the Constitution, others argue that it is a good thing. Those who support gridlock believe that a government that "governs least governs best," and that policy stability should be applauded rather than derided. They argue that legislative action can produce either liberal or conservative policy change, and that gridlock can prevent oppressive laws from being passed.

Explore related products

Founding Fathers: The Fight for Freedom and the Birth of American Liberty

$14.18 $40

Founding Fathers: A Captivating Guide to Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and James Monroe (Historical Figures)

$20.95 $25.22

America's Hidden Stories (TV Series)

$2.99

America's Founding Fathers

$14.49 $18.8

Washington (TV Series)

$2.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99

Legislative inaction

The United States Constitution is a framework with the built-in capacity for amendment. The framers of the Constitution did not consider themselves infallible and assumed that the country and its challenges would change. They deliberately gave future generations the ability to reshape the Constitution. The framers were enlightened and educated men of their time, and they believed in the capacity of human intellect for discovery and problem-solving.

However, the framers also sought a strong national government that could govern—deliberately and efficiently, albeit insulated from the passions of popular majorities. They were dissatisfied with their governing experiment after the Revolution and fearful of rebellious debtors in the states. They also seemed particularly concerned about the potential for a "tyranny of the majority." Separating the powers of government would make it harder for it to pass oppressive laws and for the majority to run roughshod over the rights of minorities.

Gridlock is the political stalemate that occurs when the government is unable to act or pass laws because rival parties control different parts of the executive branch and the legislature. When there are more bills waiting to be voted on than are being considered, gridlock occurs. Gridlock in the US government generally happens when parties work against each other to block legislation until their demands are met.

Political gridlock is increasingly common in the United States due to the number of hurdles to pass legislation. In addition to the constitutional system of checks and balances, arcane practices such as a filibuster enable a small minority of actors to hold up legislation indefinitely. The two-party system prevalent in the US encourages disagreement and legislative stalling because each party has agendas that they attempt to force on each other during the legislative process. Both the House and the Senate rarely agree, and each entity requires a majority to pass legislation. Due to the stances each party takes on the issues being addressed, no agreements can be reached because no one wants to concede or compromise.

Amendments

The Constitution's framers deliberately created a system of checks and balances, which some argue has led to a type of gridlock. They were concerned about the potential for a "tyranny of the majority" and wanted to make it difficult for the government to pass oppressive laws. Separating the powers of the government would, in theory, make it harder for the majority to infringe on the rights of minorities. For example, if the House passed legislation that discriminated against Islamic Americans, the Senate could block it, or the President could veto it, or the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional.

The framers also created a framework with the built-in capacity for amendment. They assumed that the country and its challenges would change over time and deliberately gave future generations the ability to reshape the Constitution accordingly.

However, some argue that the Constitution's amendment process is too difficult to change, leading to institutional failure. Americans tend to blame political gridlock on uncompromising politicians and parties rather than the political structure or the Constitution itself.

Some current Republican Constitutional amendment pushes include repealing the 14th and 17th amendments, prohibiting government ownership of stock, a parental rights amendment, term limits, a flag desecration amendment, a balanced budget amendment, a right to life amendment, a gay marriage ban, a supermajority requirement for tax increases, and a cap on federal spending as a percentage of GDP.

Frequently asked questions