2006-09-13 13:34:34 · 8 answers · asked by chilipepperbabe 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
thanks!!! :3
2006-09-13 13:40:47 · update #1
wow, is Bush really becoming too powerful? hes an idiot...i hate watching him talk on the tv, i dont know HOW he got into Yale.. eeeh hes goin down as the worst pres in U.S history. HAHA! U SUCK BUSH!!!
2006-09-13 13:52:59 · update #2
So that there would be a system of checks and balances in order to keep any one branch from becoming to powerful.
2006-09-13 13:38:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It potential that of the three branches of government - govt (president), Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (appropriate court docket) - no certainly one of them can act completely without the approval of the different 2. as an occasion, say that the Legislature passes a bill. It needs the approval of the President to alter into an enforcable regulation. The appropriate court docket can come to a determination that the Congress did no longer have the right to bypass the regulation, and subsequently the President did no longer have the right to sign it. whether, the President makes a decision who sits on the ideal court docket, and Congress would desire to approve the President's determination. Congress can opposite the President's rejection (or veto) of a bill and tension the President to stay with the regulation besides. it relatively is an extremely person-friendly occasion, and there are exceptions, of course, the it extremely is the final theory.
2016-09-30 22:30:23 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Plain and simple, it provides checks and balances within the branches of government. No one branch is more powerful than the other.
I do have to add that up until lately, the executive branch did operate within the spirit of the founding fathers. It would seem that the current members of the White House see things a little differently....
2006-09-13 13:48:00 · answer #3 · answered by navymom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they didn't want to duplicate the British monarchy, a system that invested too much power in one person. The new government was to be a representational democracy where leaders were held for their actions and could be checked by the two other branches.
2006-09-13 13:44:14 · answer #4 · answered by Scooter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they were smarter than the politicians we have today. The seperation creates a system of checks and balances thus disabling one section to become more powerful than the other.
2006-09-13 13:44:01 · answer #5 · answered by worldneverchanges 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, imagine if the president had All the powers, and we were to vote for an evil president. This is not good, right? Well, the framers knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so they made sure nobody would have absolute power.
2006-09-13 13:42:39 · answer #6 · answered by chris 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To avoid the manipulators to be in command. Like Adolf Hitler of Germany.
2006-09-13 13:46:35 · answer #7 · answered by wacky_racer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To prevent what is happening now under GWB.
2006-09-13 13:41:56 · answer #8 · answered by The Gadfly 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋