Constitutional roles of the three branches of the federal government
United States political system, which flows from its constitution, is based on the separation of power. This concept is, in fact, French in origin, and it is associated with the French philosopher and Baron de Montesquieu. The framers of the constitution were quite skeptical English political system, which was they devised American constitution to ensure checks and balance. Also, the American constitution is quite rigid, which is by design and to an extent, the concept, separation of power, is responsible for it.
This concept divided federal government into three parts, which are 1) Presidency, 2) Judiciary and 3) Congress/Senate. Power, of all these branches of federal government, is well defined in the constitution. However, the constitution suggests the process to change the constitutional power dynamics, which is an amendment. Though the process, to introduce an amendment to the constitution is very cumbersome, and it requires massive political investment. Also, the constitution is framed in such manner that all significant political stakeholders, such as Republican and Democrat members, must be on board[1].
From the systematic study, of the American Constitution, we learn that the constitution, not only ensures separation of power between different segments of the federal government but also gives quite an autonomy to the states, which became a member of the Union/Federation. It suggests that states can impose decisions upon federation. In the early days, states had more power and authority, then what they have then-contemporary times. The reinterpretation or liberal interpretation of American constitution has somewhat increased the power of federal government; however, the three pillars of the American political system remains very much intact and act as a counterbalance to one another. Though it must also be acknowledged yet in some instances, the separation of power design has caused various kinds of complications too, which resulted in political/constitutional deadlocks. In some instances, it has resulted in a confrontation between different branches of the Federal Government[2].
Controversial Issue-The Unusual Case of Obama Care
In the United States, it is still the debate whether healthcare should be government/sponsored or not. This political debate has roots in two different political and economic theories. As per one political school of thought, the size of the government should be small, as the large size of government crates various kinds of political and economic complications. As providing healthcare increases size of government; therefore, it must be opposed. The opposing school of thought is of the view that because of the inconsistencies in political and economic systems, the government must interfere. Also, a state comes into existence to support and nourish life. Therefore, it is natural that government must provide healthcare services[3].
The economic argument, of those who oppose government-sponsored healthcare, is that demand and supply must determine the prices of the healthcare facility and it should not be government sponsored, as it would spin the price, of healthcare facilities, out of control. Also, the concept of subsidy runs contrary to the capitalist economic model, which is the soul of American political-economic model. Furthermore, it brings into play the concept of moral hazard.
The contrary economic argument is that human resource is one of the most sensitive and valuable resources of all the resources. Therefore, it must be protected, and it must remain healthy so that it could perform as per its potential or capacity. Also, the potency of moral hazard rationale is mitigated by partial funding of healthcare[4].
One these pro-healthcare grounds, Democrats introduced Affordable Care Act, which is also known as Obama Care. This healthcare bill was severely criticized by Republicans, and it was opposed at various forums. Republicans or those, who opposed this Affordable Care Act, were of the view that in Congress this bill would be opposed and also concerned parties would move the court for the repeal. Also, at state levels, this bill would be vigorously opposed. Therefore, two out of three branches of the federal government would be exploited to produce results in favor[5].
Judiciary
Before we discuss how Obama Care was contested through the judicial system, it is imperative to understand that President influences the composition of the judiciary and President appoints judges, which help US President to implement policy, despite strong opposition from senate/congress. In the case of Obama Cara too, President Barrack Obama waited until he was assured that the likeminded judiciary would not repeal this act. However, this did not deter concerned parties, which might be politically motivated, to move court.
The ground, on which Obama Care was contested, was the subsidy. The Section 36-B was under question, and the plaintiff asserted that originally, the subsidies, which are offered by Affordable Care Act, are only available for state health insurances and not on the federal health insurance exchanges. However, the court took the government side and explained in the judgment that Obama Care section 36-B applies to both state-run and federally facilitated exchanges. The plea of the plaintiff has not repealed the Act, but rather to reduce it to insignificance. However, the court decided in favor of the government, which threw the ball in the court of Congress[6].
Congress
As Judiciary, one the three branches, did not affect the Affordable Care Act, the Congress became the only mean or instrument to affect or repeal it. For this purpose, Republicans started an aggressive campaign, and the campaign resulted in more numbers of Republican Senators and Congressmen, which were supposed to Republican President in achieving this Objective. Though now the repealing process faces the challenges, as it seems that because of various factors, it is becoming more difficult for the Republican Party to repeal Obama Care[7].
The Conundrum
Initially, the idea, of the Republican Party, was to repeal Obama Care, as it believed that public sentiment they have titled towards the repealing of the act. However, because of the severe opposition, the Republican Party had changed its stance to the overhauling of the Obama Care or Affordable Care Act. Now, despite the Republican President in the office, the Republican Party is finding it extremely difficult to amend/change the act. In fact, the situation has reversed in many manners, as the previous Democrat President was in office, who supported the bill and now it is a Republican President, who weeks significant changes in the bill, if not total repealing of the bill.
We learn that twice the majority party could not get 50 senators to support partisan legislation to overhaul Obama Care. It suggests that the system separation of power still very much intact as an instrument and it ensures that all branches of the federal government can counterbalance and political system remains the strongest and intact; not titled[8].
Conclusion
From the discussion, it is apparent that constitution ensures a balance of power and it also ascertains that system remains fair/untitled. In the short-run, this sometimes gives birth to various kinds of complications and political deadlocks, but in the long run, it produces excellent results for the political-economic system. We also infer that for the healthy political system, separation of power is imperative, as it ensures its evolution and stability.
The above-discussed case, Obama Care, is a perfect example to understand the nature of the separation of power and how these three principal institutions of state put checks and balances on each other. We have also learned that it is the Judiciary, which ultimately decides whether an action or bill contradicts any provision of the constitution or not.
Bibliography
[1] USA.gov. “Branches of Government.” USA.Gov. November 1, 2017. Accessed November 24, 2017.https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
[2] USA.gov. “Branches of Government.” USA.Gov. November 1, 2017. Accessed November 24, 2017.https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
[3] George, Bill. “Obamacare’s ‘original sin’ is still the biggest problem with US health care.” CNBC. October 23, 2017. Accessed November 24, 2017. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/23/obamacare-reform-must-address-unhealthy-lifestyles-commentary.html
[4] Fox, Lauren. “Bruised Republicans regroup after Obamacare repeal fail.” CNN. September 27, 2017. Accessed November 24, 2017. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/27/politics/bruised-republicans-regroup-after-obamacare-repeal-fail/index.html
[5] Tully, Shawn. “Obamacare or Trumpcare, Here’s the Real Problem for Health Care Reform.” Fortune. March 27, 2017. Accessed November 24, 2017. http://fortune.com/2017/03/27/trump-healthcare-ahca-trumpcare-obamacare/.
[6] Jopson, Barney, and Courtney Weaver. “Barack Obama’s healthcare problems turn critical.” Financial Times. August 2016, 2016. Accessed March 25, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/a23dc4b6-6b9c-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c
[7] Fox, Lauren. “Bruised Republicans regroup after Obamacare repeal fail.” CNN. September 27, 2017. Accessed November 24, 2017. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/27/politics/bruised-republicans-regroup-after-obamacare-repeal-fail/index.html
[8] Weinberger, Hannah. “Health care reform: Issues roundup.”CNN. June 28, 2012. Accessed November 23, 2017. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/14/health/heath-care-roundup/index.html
+447462439809