North Carolina GOP lawmakers are waging war on a founding principle of American government

Unlike parliamentary government in which the party with a legislative majority typically holds a virtual monopoly on power, the American system is designed to distribute power and make divided government — along with the checks and balances and necessity for compromise that come with it — a frequent, even default, scenario.

In Great Britain, when the Prime Minister’s party commands a majority and sticks together, the opposition — even if it represents half the nation, or something close to it — has no real means to exercise power.

In the United States, things are (or are supposed to be) very different.

Here, where voters — except Nebraskans, anyway — directly elect two legislative bodies, a chief executive, and numerous other statewide offices with broad responsibility, the likelihood that people of different parties and beliefs will hold office at the same time and be forced to coexist is high.

This was not an accident. It was part of the nation’s original design that, by dividing power between various government branches, the rights of the people would be better protected.

Interestingly and unfortunately, this basic vision of governance that’s been taken for granted by so many for so long now seems to have become anathema to a group that has long held itself out as the protectors of tradition and our founders’ original intent — the modern North Carolina Republican Party.

Think for a moment about the elections in our state over the last decade-and-a-half. If ever there was a place in which voters repeatedly demonstrated a broad diversity of viewpoints and a penchant for divided government, this is it.

On multiple occasions, North Carolinians have split their votes between a Republican legislature and Democratic governor. Right now, North Carolina’s Council of State includes five Democrats and five Republicans.

It’s the kind of situation that you’d think would, in keeping with the vision of the founders, give rise to compromise and respect — compromise as a prerequisite to the enactment of any significant new laws, and respect among various elected officials for the choices voters have made in filling other offices.

State Republican legislative leaders, however, have a different vision. It goes like this: “We are in charge and will use whatever means at our disposal — most notably, extreme partisan gerrymandering — to dominate and weaken all other elected officials who refuse to do our bidding.”

This approach has been applied most frequently and visibly in order to limit the power of Democratic governors Roy Cooper and Josh Stein, but many other officials have also been targets. Former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory was forced to turn to the courts in order to resist legislative efforts to seize some of his powers, and of course, last fall’s lame duck legislative session featured a multi-part assault on the powers of not just Stein, but also Lt. Gov. Rachel Hunt, Superintendent of Public Instruction Mo Green, and Attorney General Jeff Jackson.

Jackson’s powers as attorney general are now under further attack in new companion bills in the state House and Senate.

Under the legislation — which clearly targets Jackson for daring, along with several other AG’s, to question some of President Trump’s recent unconstitutional edicts — North Carolina attorneys general would be forever barred from making an argument in any lawsuit that challenges a presidential executive order.

And it’s hard to overstate what a misguided overreach this represents.

The attorney general — the only constitutional officer required to be a lawyer in good standing — is elected in a statewide vote to represent all North Carolinians and sworn to enforce the constitution to the best of their ability. For decades, attorneys general across the nation of all parties have regularly played important roles in high-profile federal and state court litigation. It’s one of the factors that voters consider when electing an attorney general.

Indeed, had Trump loyalist Dan Bishop been elected last fall instead of Jackson, it’s a certainty that he would now — undoubtedly with the blessing of his fellow Republicans at the General Assembly — be affixing his name to all manner of federal court briefs defending the White House.

But, of course, that’s a fact of which many North Carolina voters were aware when they voted for Jackson over Bishop; they wanted another check on the GOP’s power.

By now attempting to permanently silence and micromanage this important constitutional officer, lawmakers are setting a new standard for partisan, power-hungry and — this is important — shortsighted vindictiveness.

After all, Republican legislators may not care for Attorney General Jackson, but what about future attorneys general dealing with future executive orders? What if a president issued an order directing North Carolina to, say, cede a swath of land to Virginia? Do lawmakers really want to enact a law that forbids the attorney general from opposing it?

Whenever lawmakers get around to hearing the bill — weather has delayed a scheduled Wednesday House hearing — it will be fascinating to hear if sponsors even try to muster a plausible explanation for the proposal, other than that the appeal of raw power. They will face a tall task.