Regardless of party, US presidents have too much power. Restore checks and balances

Even in these divided times, most Americans can agree that our federal government isn’t working very well. During my 20 years as an Army infantry officer and 14 years in sales management, I focused on making systems more efficient and effective. Currently, as an advocate for electoral and governmental reforms, I still pursue these goals. Instead of just complaining about bad outcomes from our government, we should adopt reforms to improve our electoral process and restore the checks and balances in our Constitution.

For the past decade, I’ve advocated for an election reform called ranked choice voting. Under this proposal, voters rank candidates in order of choice instead of just picking one. This simple change would result in less partisanship by incentivizing candidates to appeal to more of the electorate.

But government reforms shouldn’t be limited to just the voting process. They must also address what happens after candidates are in office — in particular, how our constitutional checks and balances have eroded. President Donald Trump’s controversial deployment of troops in Washington, D.C., to disperse protesters last month renewed our focus on presidential emergency powers and the proper use of our fighting forces.

But this presidential overreach with impunity has taken place under presidents of both parties. And while presidents’ powers have expanded, it’s largely because Congress has been all too willing to abdicate their own constitutional responsibilities for national security.

We are supposed to have three coequal branches of government. The president is the head of the executive branch, meaning he or she executes policy determined by the legislative branch, such as the power of the purse and the power to declare war. Congress is comprised of the people’s directly-elected representatives. In particular, every seat in the House of Representatives is up for election every two years.

Yet for too long, Congress has been unable or unwilling to serve as the people’s representatives on war powers issues. Members are too comfortable ignoring examples of executive overreach when a president from their party is in office, and too willing to pass the buck on tough votes involving our nation’s security. As a result, it’s nearly impossible for the public to have a real say in debates that have huge implications for military families.

Consider how presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on declarations of national emergency to seize new powers. While some are appropriate examples of the executive branch acting in the national interest, others are motivated by more narrow and partisan concerns.

Witness Trump’s dishonest declaration that allowed him to illegally raid congressionally-approved funds for military construction to help build sections of his border wall. This is a violation of the separation of powers, and one that should concern all of us, regardless of our views on the wall itself. (Although I think former professional wrestler and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura exposed the folly best when he noted that a wall built to keep people out can also be used to keep people in.)

Thankfully, there is a growing bipartisan movement both inside and outside Congress to restore the proper and accountable role of our lawmakers on matters of war, peace and national emergencies. Our Kansas and Missouri congressional delegations should support these efforts, recognizing that if they are truly to represent the interests of the people, they shouldn’t allow this or any president to behave as a king.

It’s time we adopted reforms to make our government more effective — when all of us vote and when our elected representatives are sworn to uphold the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution.

This story was originally published July 2, 2020 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Regardless of party, US presidents have too much power. Restore checks and balances."