No one in government should be trusted with unlimited power — not even the good ones.
That’s why the Constitution designed a system of checks and balances:
each branch of government has the ability — and the duty — to restrain the others.
• Congress can impeach the President
• The President can veto Congress
• The Courts can strike down laws
• Congress can change the courts’ structure
• The People can replace everyone through elections
It’s not just about keeping the bad guys in check.
It’s about preventing even well-meaning officials from going too far.
When power is separated and balanced, decisions require negotiation, compromise, and accountability.
That’s not dysfunction — it’s protection.
This system may slow things down.
But it also slows down tyranny.
A fast government can be efficient.
A balanced government can be just.
The Founders didn’t want rulers.
They wanted a government that answers to the law — and to the people
Summarize
Power, by its nature, is precarious.
It enables progress — and invites abuse.
History shows us that even well-meaning leaders can overreach when not restrained.
The framers of the Constitution did not assume that virtue alone could safeguard liberty.
Instead, they devised a system where ambition would check ambition.
No single branch of government would be left to guard itself.
Congress holds the power to legislate.
But its laws can be vetoed by the President, or invalidated by the courts.
The President commands the armed forces, yet cannot declare war without Congress.
And if a President defies constitutional limits, the judiciary may intervene.
Judges are granted life tenure to preserve independence.
Yet they are not untouchable:
Congress can impeach them, and future amendments or laws can reshape the legal framework they interpret.
This interplay is not accidental.
It is a deliberate safeguard — not only against tyranny,
but also against complacency,
and against the quiet erosion of liberty in times of crisis.
The Constitution does not idealize power.
It restrains it, tests it, and subjects it to scrutiny.
In doing so, it places its faith not in individuals,
but in a structure —
a balance of forces constantly negotiating the limits of authority.