America: where is the concept of Loyal Opposition?

For the US to advance, a fractured political system needs renovating.

For all its perceived inconsistences, Wikipedia delivers descriptive, often decent entries.  On loyal opposition, the cyclopaedia notes:  

"In parliamentary systems of government, the term loyal opposition is applied to the opposition parties in the legislature to indicate that the non-governing parties may oppose the actions of the sitting cabinet – typically comprising parliamentarians from the party with the most seats in the elected legislative chamber – while maintaining loyalty to the source of the government's power. The concept thus permits the dissent necessary for a functioning democracy, as the policies of the governing cabinet can be challenged without fear of being accused of treason against the state. The idea of inquisitorial opposition that held the executive to account emerged in Great Britain."

The debt-ceiling debate in the US led to accusations of political brinkmanship and nearly caused a calamatous impasse.  Certainly, it exposed inadequacies in the American political system.  Where was the loyal opposition of the Republicans, given the Tea Party tactics and demands?  

Opposition parties should loyally oppose, examine and criticise government policy, state their own case to the people, prepare for government and a resumption of power.  Not thwart the government or expose, even enhance, its impotence.  And certainly not to act in a way leading to credit downgrades, loss of international confidence, devaluation of the currency, or problems for domestic corporations in raising capital for expansion, marketing or research and development.

Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, a French political thinker of the Enlightenment era, "claimed that a liberal constitutional monarchy was the best system of government for a people who prized freedom, on the grounds that by dividing the sovereignty of the nation between several centres of power, it provided a permanent check on any one of them becoming despotic", noted History Today.   

Wikipedia expands, "he perceived a separation of powers among the monarch, Parliament, and the courts of law. Subsequent writers have noted that this was misleading, because the United Kingdom had a very closely connected legislature and executive, with further links to the judiciary (though combined with judicial independence)."  

USHistory.org claims "Baron de Montesquieu declared that power should not be concentrated in the hands of any one individual.  He recommended separating power among executive, legislative, judicial branches of government.  American intellectuals began to absorb these ideas. The delegates who declared independence from Britain used many of these arguments.  The constitutions of our first states and the United States Constitution reflect Enlightenment principles. The writings of Benjamin Franklin made many Enlightenment ideas accessible to the general public."

The British Head of State, a constitutional monarch, opens parliament, chooses the Prime Minister - head of government - but only one who commands a majority in the House of Commons.  The monarch heads the judiciary which operates in his or her name.  Yet the Head of State is prevented from interfering in either the parliamentary or legal processes.  

Meanwhile, the head of government, the PM, sits as a member of the legislature and promotes, argues and defends government policy on the floor of the House.  And the House is a chamber where he (or she) asserts control through commanding that vital voting majority.  Sensibly, there are checks and balances in the form of parliamentary committees and the like.  

The leading court of the land until 2009 was the Law Lords, now superceded by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.  Its judicial panel consists of members of  the parliament's upper chamber, the House of Lords, thereby connecting the legislature with the judicial process by their involvement and advice when legislation is created.  

The three arms of the UK state are thus interconnected in an efficient way and perform in a fashion which isn't disfuntional.

Montesquieu's misinterpretation and his influence have left the American Supreme Court divorced from the legislative process.  In addition, the US Head of State in his capacity as head of its government, suffers from partial impotence by not consistently commanding a majority in both houses of Congress.  He can so easily be thwarted in efforts to press through legislation to effect his programme and that of his Cabinet, none of whom sit in the legislature either.  There is disconnect.

Is it not time for a fundemental review of the US government processes to correct these anomolies?  For it is these which prevent firm action, change management and improvement, it seems to me.  While I don't (necessarily) argue for the adoption of an unwritten constitution along British lines, it is clear that in having a constitution which is not actually a document (with a plethora of amendments) but based on conventions, common law and on statutes, quick responses to changes in local and international conditions are made possible.  Current circumstances demand more flexibility and far more constructive action from all three arms of the state, I believe.

A wholesale review of the (written) American constitution, reflecting modern reality and redressing past imbalances and inadequacies would free up the system to more energetically and effectively embrace the future.

Check out all commentaries here.