Congress: What It Was Meant to Be; What It's Become

Listen to this episode

Listen and subscribe to the podcast

Join The American Idea’s Listener Email list – get news about upcoming episodes and a chance to offer questions for them, too!

The United States Constitution established Congress as the “first branch” of government, placing it in Article I and granting it extensive enumerated powers. Yet today’s Congress bears little resemblance to the institution the founders envisioned. Understanding this transformation reveals fundamental shifts in American governance that have reshaped the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.

The Founders’ Design: Congress as the Central Institution

When delegates at the Constitutional Convention crafted Article I, they intended Congress to be the primary driver of national government. The founders were moving away from the Articles of Confederation, which had created a weak single-house congress governing a loose “league of friendship” between sovereign states. They sought something stronger but remained wary of executive power after their experience with British monarchy.

The Constitution’s structure reveals these priorities. Article I is not only first but also the longest and most detailed of the seven articles of the original Constitution. Its eighteen enumerated powers in Section 8 encompass the core functions of national government: taxation, regulation of commerce, defense, and lawmaking. By contrast, Article II’s treatment of executive power is notably brief, with much presidential authority defined in general terms requiring interpretation over time.

The founders expected Congress to write laws while the president would function more as an administrator—what scholar Jeffrey Tulis described as a “clerk” executing congressional will. This reflected their belief that in a republic, the legislative branch, being closest to the people through representation, should hold primacy in governance.

Early Departures from the Founders’ Vision

Even during the Washington administration, this idealized structure began breaking down. Controversies emerged over foreign policy, particularly Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation during the Anglo-French conflict, which some in Congress viewed as presidential overreach. The appointment power also generated disputes, with the crucial question of whether presidents could unilaterally remove officials they had appointed.

These early tensions stemmed partly from constitutional ambiguities but also from outsized personalities involved. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were hardly the administrative clerks the founders might have envisioned. Their national prominence and political leadership naturally expanded presidential influence beyond the constitutional framework’s modest expectations.

The emergence of political parties further complicated the founders’ design. Thomas Jefferson’s presidency marked the first systematic effort by a president to work with congressional leaders to advance a legislative agenda, establishing a precedent for presidential involvement in the legislative process.

The Nineteenth Century: Ebb and Flow

Throughout the nineteenth century, congressional and presidential power experienced cycles of expansion and contraction, typically driven by national crises. The Civil War represented dramatic expansion of presidential authority under Lincoln, who exercised powers that Congress later ratified rather than initiated. However, the post-war period saw Congress reassert dominance, leading to decades of weak presidencies.

This pattern reflected what scholars call the “ratchet effect.” Each crisis required concentrating power in the executive for quick decision-making, but when crises passed, presidential authority never fully returned to pre-crisis levels. Still, through most of the nineteenth century, this effect remained modest, constrained by limited federal government scope and technological barriers to rapid communication and administration.

Twentieth Century Transformation

The twentieth century fundamentally altered this dynamic through continuous crisis and exponential government growth. World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War created an almost unbroken series of emergencies lasting from 1914 to 1989. Each crisis ratcheted presidential power higher, with minimal congressional recovery between crises.

Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency marked the decisive break with nineteenth-century patterns. When FDR took office, the White House employed roughly 100 people. The federal government outside the military numbered only about 4,000 employees in 1802, mostly postal workers. By FDR’s era, both numbers had grown exponentially, providing presidents with unprecedented administrative capacity.

Roosevelt also implemented the vision of presidential power that Woodrow Wilson had articulated as a political scientist. Wilson argued that separation of powers handicapped American government in addressing modern challenges. Congressional committees operated in secrecy, focused on parochial interests, and lacked coordination. Wilson advocated for a “rhetorical presidency” that would speak directly to the American people over Congress’s head, using public opinion to pressure legislators into compliance.

FDR perfected this approach while dramatically expanding the use of executive orders—issuing more than all subsequent presidents combined. He also began systematic use of federal agencies to regulate economic activity, establishing precedents that permanently altered the executive branch’s role in governance.

Contemporary Congressional Dysfunction

Today’s Congress operates in ways the founders never anticipated. Instead of the deliberative committee process they envisioned—where legislation would be developed through hearings, expert testimony, and bipartisan negotiation—Congress now functions primarily through massive omnibus bills written by small leadership teams and presented to members with minimal time for review.

This process bypasses the “regular order” that once characterized congressional operations. Traditional committee work involved information gathering through hearings, deliberation among members, and gradual consensus-building. This process educated both legislators and the public about policy issues while creating opportunities for compromise across party lines.

The current system concentrates power in party leadership while marginalizing rank-and-file members. These massive pieces of legislation often contain provisions that lack public support, but the all-or-nothing nature prevents selective opposition.

The Transparency Problem

Paradoxically, increased transparency has contributed to congressional dysfunction. The introduction of C-SPAN and constant media coverage has transformed congressional proceedings into theatrical performances. Members now play primarily to cameras rather than engaging in genuine deliberation with colleagues.

This performance imperative makes compromise nearly impossible. Any gesture toward working with the opposing party generates immediate criticism from partisan activists who monitor every word and vote. Members find themselves trapped between the need to appear uncompromising to their bases and the practical necessity of bipartisan cooperation to achieve legislative outcomes.

The founders anticipated that members would deliberate in relative privacy, allowing them to explore common ground without constant public scrutiny. While transparency serves important democratic values, its current extent may have created perverse incentives that undermine effective governance.

Prospects for Reform

Reforming Congress requires addressing both structural and cultural problems. Structural reforms might include reducing televised coverage of routine committee proceedings, increasing resources for oversight and policy analysis, and preventing the revolving door between congressional staff and lobbying firms. However, the most challenging reform involves changing voter behavior to reward substantive legislative work rather than partisan theater.

Until citizens demand responsible governance over ideological purity, members of Congress will continue prioritizing activities that generate headlines and campaign contributions over the difficult work of crafting effective legislation. The founders’ vision of Congress as the first branch remains achievable, but only if Americans choose to support representatives who prioritize institutional responsibility over individual political advancement.

The transformation of Congress from constitutional centerpiece to dysfunctional sideshow represents one of the most significant departures from the founders’ design in American history. Reversing this trend requires understanding both how we arrived at this point and what changes might restore Congress to its intended role in American governance.