Thursday, October 23, 2008
H.W. Perry and L.A. Powe, Jr. (both Texas), as well as Daryl Levinson (Harvard) and Richard Pildes (NYU), among others, have argued that it's not the separation of powers per se between the three branches of government that insures checks and balances in government, but rather the separation of power over the branches between the parties that really provides meaningful checks and balances. In this short essay, Peter Shane (Ohio State) argues, instead, that, given the current condition of the Republican Party, real checks and balances will come from Democratic control across the board. I imagine this will spark a spirited debate.