English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In describing the Constitution, its always mentioned that 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' are two of its key features. What do these phrases mean in your opinion?

2006-09-06 19:02:01 · 10 answers · asked by pnoiz1 2 in Politics & Government Government

10 answers

They refer to the executive (the President and the various government agencies under his authority), the legislature and the judiciary. That much you doubtless already know.

During the Bush Administration the Republican party took control of all three branches. Are they still separate? Are there any checks and balances? Doubtful. Here's why:

Until the Clinton years, Congresspersons voted largely according to their own views and along the lines of their constituents collective interest and opinions. Since then, there has been party discipline and on important issues few Congresspersons dissent from his or her party line. Inevitably democracy suffers. Here's what Roussea said long ago about Britain, where the Party Whip has always controlled how a Member of Parliament votes:

"The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing. In the brief moment of its freedom, the English people makes such a use of that freedom that it deserves to lose it."

2006-09-06 19:05:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Not just my opinion Ruling on the wire tapping case the Judge ruling involved the separation of powers. Congress drafts laws and passes them by majority vote then the bill goes to the president and he signs or veto's the bill He cannot amend or change the intent of the bill. If he signs it it will become law, veto and back to Congress and if it gets passes by 2/3 vote of both houses it becomes law. If it is challenged then the courts rule whether it is constitutional. That is the checks and balances. There cannot be a law ordered by the president. There is law by precedent when there is a dispute over existing law Abortion laws for example Roe vs Wade court case.

2006-09-06 19:16:03 · answer #2 · answered by longroad 5 · 0 0

The president has the constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. Congress controls the money and how it is spent. (the taxpayer's money). The courts determines if any laws passed meet all constitutional guidelines. The president has veto powers but congress (if enough of them agree) can over ride the veto. The federal government takes precedence over the states and their governments. (if any state law is in conflict with a federal law, the federal law rules) The judiciary determines the question.

2006-09-06 19:37:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They are a description of the principles aspoused by the founding fathers of the country when they drafted and ratified the Constitution. It ensures that the power of the government is limited to proper procedures (some call it due process).

Those words aren't in the Constitution.

2006-09-06 19:10:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

this gained't provide up Rush, Sean Hannity or Mark Levin. the will both bypass satellite tv for pc or stay and native programming (that's extra diverse) will bypass away. what's extra, they gained't look at what's being reported on Black or Hispanic radio nor what's being reported on Liberal, over-the-air television courses like GMA, Chris Mathews, the in the present day educate, overdue nighttime television, some thing on NBC or MSNBC, and so on. Over-the-air television (the component that you want a digital converter container) is FCC licensed, yet they in no way factor out the prejudice or lack of variety of opinion on those FCC licensed shops. Write to you Congressman to make those factors.

2016-11-06 19:22:09 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

That President Bush cannot start a war without a vote of congress, cannot hold prisoners in secret prisons, cannot wiretap without approval of judges, &c. Since he's already done all of those he should be impeached immediately along with his entire cabinet. This hasn't happened because to do so would require the destruction of the entire US Government, because it's rotten to the core.

2006-09-06 19:16:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

To me it means that no "one" party will be allowed to rule exclusively without a second or more party to give choice, hence balance in our govenment and organizations. Any other way would be a dictatorship. One party or mind making all the decisions.

2006-09-06 19:10:58 · answer #7 · answered by rgbear38 2 · 1 0

separation of powers is meant to ensure that no one group gains all of the control. and the checks and balances act upon those separate powers, to ensure that the such power is not used unjustly.

2006-09-06 19:04:23 · answer #8 · answered by rachel k 4 · 0 0

That no one branch of government, and no one individual, is above the law. That each branch is limited in what it can do, and that each branch has in place the means to restrain the others.

Separation of powers means that all power cannot be concentrated in one branch, or one office. It means that power is distributed among the branches, and that no branch can usurp the power of another without its consent.

2006-09-06 19:03:26 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2 0

BS.

2006-09-06 19:03:07 · answer #10 · answered by ♥plus futé que toi♥ 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers