On Dec. 30, Gov. Jared Polis commuted the sentence to 10 years in prison of the truck driver who careened his rig into traffic on Interstate-70, creating a fiery pileup which killed four people. This is, of course, within the purview of his office and position. But the timing and manner raise, again, questions about the centripetalization of governing authority in the executive branch.

There is fairly universal recognition that the 110-year sentence handed down to Rogel Aguilera-Mederos was excessive. It stemmed from minimum-sentencing guidelines, which had been established in years past to reflect society’s concerns over crime, and to check the propensity of wayward judges to use their bench as a social laboratory at the expense of justice.

Well, they’re not a bad idea, but it does go to show that there is some value in flexibility. Granted, there is some flexibility built into the system. Colorado House Speaker Alec Garnett pointed out DAs have considerable leeway in terms of what charges are levied, and which charges are pursued that involve the mandatory minimum sentences. He speaks with the authority of one raised by one of the longest-serving and effective DAs in the state.

The issue with Polis’ commutation is not so much whether or not it was justified, or even if the 10-year sentence Polis decreed is appropriate (both legitimate questions) but whether it subordinated the judicial process. The unusual nature of the case spurred the judge to decide that maybe it warranted a second look, and, accordingly, a re-sentencing hearing scheduled for today (Jan. 13) to revisit the situation. Reportedly, the Jefferson County DA was going to argue for a more reasonable sentence of 20-30 years. Presumably, the defense to less.

Despite this, Gov. Polis felt compelled to act precipitously anyway, possibly feeling political pressure from 5 million folks who signed an online petition, and – if reports are accurate – celebrity encouragement from Kim Kardashian West. Mrs. Kardashian West, whatever else she is known for (and I have no idea what that is) seems to be making a name for herself lobbying presidents and governors to get people out of jail.

What is particularly troubling about this is the seeming ease with which the executive branch appears willing to impose itself over the other branches, and over the established processes. A great deal of the controversy surrounding the official response to the COVID pandemic centered on the imposition of mandates, shutdowns and other measures invoked by executive branch offices around the country – measures that generally bypassed the legislative process under the aegis of a public emergency. I have argued before that a provision for the invocation of such power is necessary – a deliberative process is counter-productive when the enemy is at the gates, for instance – but that, on the other hand, the temptation to wield such authority in excess of its prescribed intent is strong, and needs to be aggressively checked.

The political institutions vouchsafed us by the founders (and centuries of English constitutional development before them, and Greek and Roman antiquity before that) are deliberately designed to be somewhat frustrating. They are built on the accumulated knowledge of generations which recognized, usually through grievous experience, that rash and precipitous change rarely results in a good outcome. Politically speaking, the U.S. – and the West, for that matter – is all about the processes and institutions specifically designed to disperse power. It’s to ensure that society’s order and laws are generated by an established process, not by the whims or decree of any particular person or mob of persons. That’s called rule of law. And yes, it is slow, often tedious, and it is easy to see why bypassing it is a tempting alternative.

It’s not a temptation to which either political party is immune. Conservatism (at least traditionally) is supposed the be the philosophy of conserving these institutions, and in the U.S. the Republican Party holds that banner; and yet a Republican President was at least as enamored with wielding the authority of the Executive Order as his Democratic predecessor and successor. And, of course, a few hundred ruffians a year ago took it upon themselves to decide that the process and institutions were passe, taking a cue from their rioting counterparts on the left.

American political institutions are holding, and remain strong, build on centuries of development and ancestral wisdom. But every time an executive agency usurps the legislative branch, or a Governor supersedes the Judiciary, or a President urges abandonment of a Senatorial filibuster because some piece of legislation is just too important to leave to the normal procedures, the foundation is chipped away – and, with it, our claim to legitimate self-government.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.