Fact check: Why does it seem like Americas checks and balances in government are not working properly?

1. Summary of the results

The perception that America's checks and balances aren't working properly stems from several documented challenges to the traditional separation of powers. The system, established in 1787, has undergone significant shifts, particularly regarding the expansion of executive power through mechanisms like Executive Orders ^[1]. While the constitutional mechanisms remain in place, they require active participation and vigilance from all branches and citizens to maintain their effectiveness ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial perspectives need to be considered:

• The system is intentionally complex to prevent power concentration, with each branch having specific constitutional tools to check others ^[3]
• Some argue that the system has become a "gridlock factory" that impedes effective governance, suggesting alternative models like parliamentary systems might be more effective ^[4]
• The concept of a "deep state" has emerged as a popular explanation for perceived governmental dysfunction, though experts disagree about its nature and existence ^[5]
• Modern challenges include:
• Rise of administrative agencies
• In-house tribunals
• Potential misuse of Chevron Deference doctrine ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question assumes a breakdown in the system, which requires more nuanced examination:

• Historical Context: Presidential power expansion isn't new - it dates back to Franklin D. Roosevelt and continues through modern administrations ^[1]
• Multiple Interpretations: What some see as system failure, others view as built-in friction. The term "deep state" often serves to explain complex political events and reflects institutional distrust ^[6]
• Beneficiaries of Different Narratives:
• Political figures benefit from claiming system breakdown to justify expanding their power
• Reform advocates benefit from highlighting systemic failures to promote alternative governance models ^[4]
• Status quo defenders benefit from attributing problems to individual actors rather than systemic issues ^[7]

The perception of dysfunction might actually indicate the system working as designed - creating friction and preventing rapid power consolidation, though perhaps at the cost of efficiency ^[3].