[ckozlowski]

Exactly. While I'm sure they didn't mean "deadlock", delay was precisely what the framers had in mind. The emphasis on super-majorities and agreement between multiple bodies was designed to keep mob mentality from fundamentally changing the people's rights in the heat of the moment.

I'd argue this has eroded in recent decades due to lack of transparency, which has greatly hindered the third branch, the Judiciary, from being able to act as effectively as it might have otherwise.

[wtbob]

> which has greatly hindered the third branch, the Judiciary, from being able to act as effectively as it might have otherwise.

I don't think that the American judiciary's problem is that it's hindered in its actions.

Historically, we should have seen more impeachments of federal officials; Congress needs to wield its authority in an exercise of checks and balances on the executive and judicial branches.

[ckozlowski]

Well, the idea of Congress impeaching judges frankly terrifies me, and given that Congress holds up most executive appointments as it is, I'm not sure they could do much more damage there.

The Ethics Committees largely hand-slap only the most gross violations of their members. I see your intent there, but I'd much rather see Congress holding a higher standard of itself.

If you're referring to the overreach of Federal officials, then that gets a bit more sticky. Yes, it should be reined in, but when I see one Congressmen one-upping another on how we need to be "tough" or have "no tolerance" for this or that, I'm little surprised that our police and intelligence agencies act the way they do.

[npsimons]

> when I see one Congressmen one-upping another on how we need to be "tough" or have "no tolerance" for this or that, I'm little surprised that our police and intelligence agencies act the way they do.

Puritanism dies hard. I'd say the constitution is working perfectly: the government we have is the one we deserve and one that really does reflect what this country, on the whole, wants. People in this country are still overall prudes who want harsh punishments, and that's what we've got. We don't need to fix the constitution, because that won't fix the root cause which is that our society needs fixing.

[eli_gottlieb]

>I'd say the constitution is working perfectly: the government we have is the one we deserve and one that really does reflect what this country, on the whole, wants.

Can you justify this in a non-self-referential way, ie: via data other than election outcomes?

[ckozlowski]

I think that's a harsh way to put it (or maybe harsh to read) but I think you're largely correct.

[crusso]

I'd agree with that if we had Congressional term limits to make Congress more answerable to the people. As it is, incumbency is way too powerful and is partly to blame for the dysfunction we're currently seeing.

[bmelton]

At the end of the day, I think that making government more accountable to its people is more directly established by migrating more power to the states, and away from the federal government.

I have a much greater likelihood of engaging my state and local politicians than I do my federal representatives, and while New Hampshire residents have more direct representation than, say, California residents, it's still dramatically improved over our representation by federal reps.

This of course comes with its own set of pitfalls, for which the federal government has been placed as arbiter, and ceding / being granted power with which to remedy, but in my opinion, term limits seem to be more of a band-aid for a hemorrhaging wound than a a root cause fix.

[scott_s]

The author of this piece, though, does mean deadlock. Not delay, but true deadlock.