"Checks and Balances" is a general term regarding the 3 branches of the Federal Goverment.
It means that if you do something unique and provocative, another branch will be looking over your shoulder and be able to say something like "You overstepped your authority". And therefore recind the decision, thereby bringing 'things' back into 'balance'.
By definiton - we already have the perfect concept of checks and balances. The real problem is that corruption can prevent others from checking up on you, while there's no objective way to determine if 'balance' really exists. If we have a king, then the executive branch is too powerful, if we can't delcare war immediately after being attacked, -then (probably) the legislative branch is too powerful.
2006-07-05 07:21:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by MK6 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No Amendments are necessary or useful in this case. Checks and balances depend of politicians speaking up and defending their rights and also challenging misinformation.
For the democrats to speak up about what they are being accused of by the republicans. For example, Kerry was savaged by the Swift Boat Nixon inspired attack ads in 2004, and Kerry did not respond until 2006. Just a little to late for the election.
Also, the Democratic Party is finally talking about the Republican efforts to suppress voters likely to vote Democratic. Democrats have to attack illegal and inappropriate behavior by the opposite with information, explanation and challenges.
In other words, the Democrats have to start speaking directly to people. The people are not going to know what is right or wrong if the Democrats do not talk to them.
This will offer check and balances that people can understand.
2006-07-05 14:45:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by victor charlie 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Get rid of the electoral college system... it's antiquated if not ineffectual.
People with little money or power need equal access to government positions. A nation-wide T.V. station needs to give equal time to candidates to make their pitch. And that should be the only allowed form of advertisement for elections. In other words, how much money you have shouldn't skew votes in your favor (because you were able to afford commercials and billboards and get on talk shows).
Campaign contributions would become moot, thusly eliminated, as well as the sneaking possibility that they are bribes.
Senators and Congresspeople shouldn't be able to vote themselves raises.
That would be a start to balancing the system (away from it being weighted to the rich and their cronies), making goverment positions staffed by a variety of people, hopefully opening up the system to more accountability (checking).
A black, openly bi-sexual, cross-gendered, HIV positive individual as president would be needed for these long-awaited procedures to be implemented.
2006-07-05 14:30:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by The Rommer 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
This may sound a little extreme, but here's a wild suggestion.
Put a line item veto in the hands of (not who you think) the Supreme Court.
When legislation is passed by Congress, and moved up the line, have it make a stop at the Supreme Court for review. Perhaps the Court could be given a mandate to eliminate pork in legislation when it is contrary to Constitutional Law.
2006-07-16 01:38:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jim T 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
For a checks and balances system to work, the separation of powers must be respected. A C&B system begins to break down with situations like the NSA wiretapping story, when the Executive decides that he can disregard the rule of law when it is convenient. I think that such moves in a way destroy America, in that our constitution was created to make sure that power was kept out of the hands of one person and reserved for the people. America must begin to heavily restrict such power struggles between governmental branches if the integrity of our system is to be maintained.
2006-07-18 20:10:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by EF 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Simply, government has to be honest with the people!!! Stop robbing from Peter to pay Paul. The real problem is that when we elect someone to public office rarely to we get any representation. Maybe this country needs another Boston Tea Party!!!
2006-07-18 07:59:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by The Mick "7" 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Checks and balances are effective when the three branches of government do not all belong to the same party.
2006-07-05 15:08:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's all about the Balance Sheet. Without checks and balances, you wouldn't have a Balance Sheet to show where the money goes.
2006-07-18 13:23:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by thewordofgodisjesus 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just vote Democratic and get rid of the drooling religious right that's running the country and everything will take care of itself.
2006-07-18 14:37:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Get rid of the two party-system. The there will be more liklihood of appointed/elected officials making decisons from their heart, and not just their party.
2006-07-05 14:24:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mick 2
·
0⤊
0⤋