Elaborate on this. How do political parties affect the equation here, and what would the more modern approach be? Any texts you can recommend regarding this?
Well, checks and balances in the American constitution were founded on the idea that there would be no "factions" (parties), and so the three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) would balance each other without any single group ever taking over. In reality, when Democrats or Republicans capture all 3 branches, it utterly defeats the entire premise of the Constitution.
The modern approach is generally a parliamentary system rather than a presidential system, and multiparty proportional representation (sometimes with multi-member districts) rather than two-party first-past-the-post single member districts. Some places to start:
If you want to look at more "advanced" constitional forms, then consociationalism is a good place to start, although much less widely adopted and more controversial as to whether it's progress or not:
>* Well, checks and balances in the American constitution were founded on the idea that there would be no "factions" (parties), and so the three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) would balance each other without any single group ever taking over.*
I’m not a constitutional scholar but I take issue with that characterization.
Federalist #10 by James Madison is all about factions, how they are inevitable, and how the system of government should be structured so that their self interests balance out for the good of the nation. Madison wrote the Virginia Plan which proposed the three branches of government and he wrote down exactly what his thinking was at the time. For most of the 18th century the British empire was a single party state ruled by the Whigs which is what they were trying to avoid by explicitly allowing room for many factions.
Jamelle Bouie (NYT) is something of a constitutional scholar (albeit of the popular book based variety) and he would eviscerate your argument. Recent pieces by him in NYT explain specifically why Madison's ideas about factions are not ideas about political parties.
For a text, The Economist published a great introductory article (though paywalled) into modern approaches to national constitutions [1] this August, shortly before a failed referendum in Chile to change the country's constitution. An excerpt from the article notes that there is no "template for how to write the ideal constitution," with different approaches having reasonably good results (e.g. the UK's uncodified constitution versus the US's written constitution).
From The Economist's article: "[...] But academics have noticed patterns. Frequently changed constitutions are often a symptom of political corrosion, and tinkering can cause chaos in turn. Attempts to amend charters have led to violence in Burkina Faso, Burundi and Togo among others in recent years. The world’s longest charters, such as India’s and Brazil’s, are also among the most changed.
"There is a strong case for brevity, too, in which constitutions establish the ground rules of how a state functions and leave the specifics to politicians. Overly long constitutions often create conflicts between articles that can only be resolved with further tampering. And “if everything is highest law, then nothing is highest law anymore,” points out Dr Versteeg. Omnibus amendments require voters to balance the merits and drawbacks of many changes at once, making it harder to generate consensus."
The viewpoint by the writer of The Economist's article would actually conflict with the view held by the original commenter, as it notes that many more recently-written constitutions that have taken different approaches from older constitutions have contributed to political instability (though the writer also acknowledges that other factors have also been at play behind instability).
