Rep. Jamie Raskin’s recent statements about the balance of power between government branches have sparked debate about America’s founding principles. While traditional constitutional theory emphasizes three co-equal branches with checks and balances, Raskin argues Congress holds ultimate authority as the branch closest to the people.
The Constitution establishes separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny through mutual accountability. James Madison’s Federalist No. 51 famously argued that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” creating a system where veto powers, judicial review, and impeachment authority keep any single branch from dominating. Courts gained additional influence through judicial review (established by Marbury v. Madison), allowing them to overturn unconstitutional laws.
As ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Raskin has championed reforms to rein in Supreme Court authority. He co-sponsored legislation to expand the Court, impose ethics rules on justices, and strengthen congressional oversight of judicial appointments. His view that “the Supreme Court is not going to save us” reflects skepticism about the judiciary’s ability to check executive overreach without legislative action.
Key tensions include:
| Branch | Checks on Others | Limited By |
|—————–|———————————-|———————————-|
| Legislative | Impeachment, veto overrides | Presidential veto, judicial review |
| Executive | Veto, enforcement discretion | Congressional funding, oversight |
| Judicial | Constitutional interpretation | Appointment/confirmation process |
Raskin’s push to reinforce congressional subpoena power and block presidential self-pardons aligns with Madison’s warning that legislatures must actively restrain executive and judicial overreach. Critics argue this risks tilting the balance too far toward partisan lawmaking rather than neutral constitutional guardianship.
The debate centers on whether modern challenges like administrative bureaucracies and polarized courts require updating 18th-century designs. While the Constitution’s framework remains intact, its effectiveness depends on officials like Raskin who treat vigilance—not blind adherence—as the true guardian of liberty.
