Separation of Powers and the Two Party System

When the Founding Fathers created our government within the Constitution, they planned it very carefully.  Like skilled craftsmen, they created three branches of government and imbued within each branch its own checks and balances.  The Executive Branch exercises checks over the Legislative Branch through its power of appointments and over the Legislative Branch through veto power.  The Judicial Branch exercises checks over both the Executive and Legislative Branches through judicial review, and finally the Legislative Branch checks the Judicial by approving appointments and the Executive through override and impeachment.  All the checks and balances work together to prevent any one branch from running roughshod over the people, and it works as long as each individual branch performs its function.  What happens when the system breaks down?

In the two party system, it happens frequently that one party controls a large portion of multiple branches.  If the President decides to ignore parts of the Constitution, what happens when members of his own party decide not to exercise the appropriate checks and balances inherent within the other branches they occupy?  What happens to the rule of law?  While it is correct to presume that if Congress approves of the legal actions of a President, then it is correct in allowing his actions to occur, it is entirely different when Congress implicitly approves of policies that are questionable within the Constitution at best and yet do nothing.  Checks and balances are not necessarily only for illegal actions as they can be exercised over policy decisions as well, but are they effectively utilized in either circumstance?

The two party system bastardizes the system of checks and balances within the Constitution.  If the President's party holds significant numbers in another branch, then it has become common practice for Constitutionally questionable policies to devolve into partisan politics.  What happens when the President extends his own power, and his party refuses to allow the opposition to hold him accountable due to partisan bickering or because of fear of the embarrassment for their party?  As the single most focal position in the government as well as the de facto head of his party, the President holds significant sway over the members of his party.  A conflict of interest arises that negatively impacts other party members' willingness to perhaps stand against him, especially in circumstances that are controversial.  In essence, our three branches of government devolve into two sides with whichever side controlling the majority of branches being able to significantly influence the direction of the government regardless of Constitutionality.

The two party system creates two sides where three were intended to be made.  Only the most egregious of infractions can cause one branch to exercise punitive actions against another, and where party is concerned, members in other branches frequently seek to cover the tracks of their compatriot while the opposition seeks to hold him accountable.  What we receive is a travesty of justice in that the individual branches needed to be completely independent regardless of party membership.  After all, what difference does your party membership make where issues of Constitutionality arise?  Would it not be better for the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to exercise their true checks and balances regardless of affiliation?

Where partisan politics are concerned, the only issues that exist are two sided.  If one party decides to take a stand that defies logic within the framework of the Constitution, there exist no objective parties to stand against it when that party is in power.  Want to expand the powers of the Executive?  As long as your party controls the other two branches, you may as well do it while you can.  As a country, while ideas hold sway, inevitably the minority can find its own rights eroded under the auspices of a balanced government, and this majority need only be half plus one.  This is the tyranny of the majority that the Founding Fathers thought they prevented yet is alive and well today.