In many western countries, when a government can't form a working coalition or agree on a budget, new elections are called.
Deadlocks like this are definitely a feature of our system that Westminster-style systems resolve differently, but shutdowns are an artifact of an old law more than the constitutional organization.
(ditto the "debt ceiling", which only exists because of a stupid statute)
Continuity of government is kinda the #1 priority of government as everything else they do is subordinate to that.
Well, to be fair, anything that is considered "essential" for the government to do is not, by definition, shut down.
Obviously, there will be differing definitions of "essential", but the continuity is there.
That said, amending the appropriate legislation to prevent this nonsense from being necessary when branches of government are at a stand-off should be the desired goal.
I like the 'triggers an election' thing. Puts the right pressure in the right place - if people in place can't get along and come to a reasonable compromise to keep the country working, then the people need a way to make some changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution#List_of_...
Many US states have much more sane budgeting systems and manage to run even under divided government without issue.
That was the whole point of how the government of the US was designed: it's supposed to be hard to "get things done" at the federal level
The modern welfare state, where millions of people are immediately hurt by the federal system grinding to a halt and stopping, would have been anathema to the framers. Nevertheless by popular vote such programs have been federalized and now we have a constitution that doesn’t support their smooth operation.
So too would have been the dominance of corporate interests in the political system. But here we are.
Why again do we really care about parsing exactly what the Founders would say about the modern world?
This is important for two reasons. The first is obvious - we did something very right. I don't think there's any single thing you can pinpoint as the secret sauce so I think it's very important to learn from and consider our entire system, its motivations, and rationale in a comprehensive but holistic fashion.
The second reason is perhaps even more important. Do you know what every great superpower before America has in common? They no longer exist. And in many cases not only do they no longer exist, but their former territory is in shambles. It's amazing, and disconcerting, to imagine that Spain was once a global superpower. The point of this is that it's critical to learn from the past, lest we repeat it. The stories may change, but the fundamental problems and decisions that nations face remain quite similar.
How'd that work out?
Anyway, extending the franchise doesn’t really have anything to do with the prominence of the federal government, whereas the increasing power of corporations does.
Who's likely to be able to bring a software system from 16.7.1 to 16.7.2? The team who built 16.7.1, or the team who wrote the pre-alpha version twenty years ago?
That's where things started breaking down.
The 17th Amendment just made things worse.
http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/anti-deficiency-act-histor...
A permanent fallback appropriation would remove congress’ ability to reallocate or reapportion spending without a 2/3 majority vote in both houses to override the presidential veto, something that seems unlikely in the modern party system.
Also military funding has to be reappropriated regularly under the constitution, a permanent military appropriation is unconstitutional. “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”