Ambition
checked by ambition. The assumption that political ambition can be counted on
is the key to the “checks and balances” feature of the U.S. Constitution. Each
of the three “arms,” or “branches,” of the federal government is checked by at
least one other. This is not to say that the other arm takes over the function or even has greater competence; rather, the
other arm is oriented here to providing accountability on abuses of power and investigating
cases of gross negligence or incompetence. An offended branch should thus not
be permitted to claim that oversight is not appropriate because it interferes
with the function the branch. Treating oversight by another arm of the federal
government as inherently partisan or illegitimate eviscerates the vital “check
and balance” aspect of the U.S. Constitution. In disputes on oversight between
two branches, the benefit of the doubt ought to go with the overseeing branch
because it is only natural for human beings to resist being held accountable
and so accountability itself needs a boost. I have in mind the case the
director of national intelligence, Joe Maguire, blocking the inspector general
from sharing an intelligence-whistleblower’s complaint with Congress in
September, 2019.
