To say we have a great form of government is an outright understatement. We have three separate, independent hubs supporting our societal bond’s outer ring. Most other countries only lust after it. By our Constitutional mandate one spoke is meant to support the others while keeping fast its own integrity. Weakened substance and poorly crafted construction are the only things can menace this system.

At least, that was the idea when this United States of America was delivered into the world as a screaming, contentious child in worldwide political society. Now; there’s a problem being tested daily. The problem is the delicate balance of the three sides of this regime we know as America.

Think of the delicacy of a triangle, arguably the most stable form and structure in Geometry. There are three basic forms of triangle: equilateral, isosceles and scalene. They each produce three angles: acute, right and obtuse. (Please refrain from any obvious allusions between the word obtuse and the political party you like least.)

One element is the Legislative; the people chosen as representative of a constituency. Sent to a central meeting place (Washington D.C.) they gather to enact legislation based allegedly on their constituencies’ needs and desires. Sometimes they get it right; other times, not so right. That leaves room for the next side of this supposedly equilateral form.

The Executive is another elemental boundary of this structure. It was originally charged with the enforcement of the laws Congress enacted. The term originally suggests perceptions of the purpose of any of these elemental sides are subjective according to the members of this triad. Thoughts on governmental structure and practice haven’t necessarily evolved and changed for the better. Some see the triangle morphing to more of an isosceles structure with two equal sides and only two equal angles. This can decrease the stability of the unit at its base, where it’s shorter and thus, more susceptible to outside influences.

Now; political ideology and dogma overrule the executive and legislative/congressional practice of the government’s conduct. It’s become a matter of what’s most expedient and most easily twisted so as to be beneficial to the person holding office. Less and less effort is directed toward the stewardship of government belonging to the people. More and more time is being dedicated to developing legislation showcasing the activity of the actors.

Finally, because the sides must intersect (if for no other reason than it’s inevitable), there must be a definition as to what we see: isosceles, equilateral or scalene (no equal sides/no equal angles). That throws the Judicial into the mix as another boundary defining the consistency and solidity of this form.

But, this side of the triangle has always been influenced by the interference of politics as well. Supreme Court Justices are nominated by Presidents having major axes to grind when considering their choices. Which person(s) will best align themselves with the President’s ideology and doctrine; and how long will that person be contributory to the direction of governmental policy? How malleable are they when it comes time to sway decisions with debate, diatribe and the dementia of political intrigue? How will the nominee affect the course of history and the political legacy of the nominating, incumbent President?

There’s a lot of conjecture as to whether the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will decide on issues such as: immigration, affirmative action and healthcare. These are all emotionally charged issues and more than a little contention has “salted the stew” to be fed to the people. The decisions of this body will affect EVERY man, woman and child in America to some degree. The issue of how we view the Constitution will be decided collaterally as each ruling is handed down.

The three sides of the triangle denote how we see and accept our government. It must be an equilateral triangle, a strengthened triad of justice more than a distorted form of political expediency and dilution of the rights of man as we know them. It must be balanced and unaffected by decree and presidential mandate. It must be stable to be just.

It can’t be a teeter-totter with an off-center fulcrum.

Thanks for listening.