Skip to main content

How does the Constitution force Americans to compromise?

To be precise, the Constitution does not actually force Americans to compromise.  However, it does make it more likely that they will have to do so.  The Constitution does this because it sets up a system of checks and balances in our government.


Because of the way our Constitution sets up the government, power is divided among various governmental bodies.  Most obviously, power is divided between the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch, which is led by the President.  In addition, states have some powers that the national government cannot take away from them.  Because of this, Americans are more likely to have to compromise.


Americans are more likely to have to compromise because people with the same ideas will not always control the House, the Senate, the Executive Branch, and the state governments.  Right now, for example, Republicans control the House and the Senate while the President is a Democrat.  In order for any law to be passed, both the Republicans who control Congress and the President must agree.  This means that they are more likely to have to compromise.


In reality, Americans still do not actually have to compromise.  We see this today as the Republicans and the Democrats have had a hard time passing any significant legislation.  They do not want to compromise, so they are willing to simply avoid passing laws.  However, our Constitution does make it more likely that they would compromise.  Our Constitution tells them that they will often have to compromise if they want to make any laws.  By setting up a system in which multiple governmental bodies have powers and in which those bodies can be controlled by different political parties, the Constitution makes it more likely that Americans will have to compromise. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more