Summary
What It Is
“Checks and Balances” is a self-regulation strategy used in the design of governing systems, based on an understanding of human tendencies.
What Problems It Solves
Governments seem to naturally grow in scope and power over the passage of time. Adding effective checks and balances to the governing systems will restrain this growth, keeping the system true to the designer’s intent.
People have flaws. Checks and balances can be added to governing systems to mitigate these flaws.
How It Works
For example, some people have the flaw that they make quick decisions without thinking things out adequately. Adding a requirement to the governing system that decisions must be made by a group of people rather than by just one will slow the decision making process to allow time for careful thought and input from others.
Discussion
Systems, by nature, tend to deviate from their design intent over time. Where practical and possible, engineers incorporate devices into systems to bring them back on course when they wander. Governments are systems. And they also tend to wander off course over time. The main challenge with governments is their natural tendency to grow in scope and power as time goes by. See the “Pocket Veto” discussion below for an example. A well designed government will have devices to keep it operating according to the intent of its framers. These self-regulating devices are commonly referred to in our political heritage as “checks and balances.”
Example of a Check: Separation of Powers
One of the principle examples of a check on the growth of government power is in the US Constitution. The legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government were divided into three separate branches. Each branch was given ways to diminish the power of the other branches. This check turns the tendency of governments to grow into an advantage. If one branch tries to grow in power, it will likely do so by diminishing the power of another branch. As governments tend to want more power, the branch being diminished will naturally fight the encroachment of the growing branch by using its constitutional powers to cut the growing branch back. Even if the branch tries to grow in a way that does not diminish another branch, such unintended growth is less likely when it requires the approval of an independent branch.
Liberty Workforce incorporates this separation of powers as well. The legislative power rests in the owner’s Board of Director and the workers’ Senate who both must approve a bill before it is sent to the President of the business. The President can veto any bill. The Court of the business can declare any law or action to be invalid if it does not comply with the constitution of the business. Other checks and balances are also incorporated in Liberty Workforce.
Benefits from a Check Must Exceed Its Cost
The benefits gained by checks and balances usually cost. For example, the complexity added by the separation of powers check increases the time and effort required to make a decision. The designer of governing systems must weigh the benefits against the costs of any check and balance. As with any engineering, the appropriate application of skill and creativity can modify a check and balance to obtain the desired cost/benefit ratio.
Governing System Design Review
During the design of governing systems, adequate effort should be made to simulate the system in all the actual use scenarios the designers can conceive. Any problems that emerge can be dealt with prior to placing the system in service. However, not every scenario will be imagined and problems might emerge during actual use.
Pocket Veto: Example of Unintended Results
An example of unintended results is the “pocket veto”. The US Constitution requires the President to return a bill to Congress with comments if he does not approve of the bill. If he does not return it or if he signs it, the bill becomes law. A bill that is returned can be made law by a 2/3 vote of Congress. However, if Congress has adjourned before the President has had 10 days to review the bill and the President does not sign the bill, the bill does not become law. When a President uses this exception, it is called a “pocket veto”. Congress cannot override such a veto.
The framers of the US Constitution clearly did not want to give the President the absolute veto power the “pocket veto” affords. What they intended was to describe what happens to a bill that a President intends to return to Congress when there is no Congress to return it to. The exception statement was made to prevent Congress from passing laws and then adjourning before the President had time to return (i.e., veto) a bill. If such were allowed, Congress could make bills become law even though the President desired to veto them, thus, in effect, circumventing the framer’s intent of Presidential review. What they did not anticipate was the President’s liberal interpretation of the meaning of “adjournment” to mean anytime Congress was not in session. What they meant by “adjournment” was when a Congress had finally disbanded prior to the seating of the newly elected Congress. Presidents have taken advantage of the wording to create power for themselves that the designer of the Constitution did not intend.
Good Initial Design Preferred to Amending an Inadequate Design
When problems such as these arise, the legal documents of the business (i.e., the ownerle-workerle lease and workerle LLC operating agreement) can be amended, but this can be onerous. The “pocket veto” problem has yet to be resolved after nearly two hundred years. It is better to create a good document in the beginning with appropriate checks and balances and without loopholes.