Checks and Balance : Separation of powers?

Question

As you may know modern democracies are based on power separation:
- legislative
- executive
- judicial

According to the different replies i received in my previous questions, it appears a need to take in account a new power:
- mass media

...and why not some others: religious, or economics

What do you think about it? What would be your suggestions of improvement?

Answer 1

Mass media is usually leaning because of bribes.

Religion also favors those that are affiliated with their group.

Economics depends who are in power for. Businessmen usually support those in the position to give them favorable business opportunities.

The remedy is for the people to check the activities of their leaders through a reliable and honest media.

Answer 2

Separation of powers and checks and balances are not the same thing although they are related. Separation of powers is the concept of separating the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. from each other. Generally this concept will prevent the executive from functioning as a court or as a legislative body. It also prevents the legislature from functioning as the executive or court and it prevents the court from functioning as the executive or the legislature. However,there are areas where there appears to be some overlap, but it is minimal. For instance the President has independent powers to conduct foreign affairs and to act as the commander and chief of the armed services. In carrying out these duties the president has inherent powers to issue executive orders in order to do so. While the executive orders may appear to be like laws, they are not and they can be superceded by new orders either by the same president or by a new one. However they would be illegal if they exceeded the powers given to the president in the Constitution. An example of this occurred when Presiden Truman nationalized the steel mills during a steel strike during the Korean War. He was taken to court on the grounds that his executive order nationalizing the steel industry was invalid because it exceeded his authority granted to the president by the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled against him and he had to reverse the order. When the Supreme Court held that Truman's order exceeded his authority it might appear that now the Supreme Court is interfering with, not only the presdency, but also the legislature and that its ruling was really making new law. But this is not so. Think of what the job of the court is. It is to decide certain cases given to it by the Constitution. In the Truman case it was a law suite against the Federal government. The court heard the evidence and decided the case in favor of the Steel industry and against the government and in so doing it merely said that the action by the President exceeded the president's authority and the court would therefore not enforce the President's order. Today,as in the past since Marbury vs. Madison, there have been complaints that the court is invading the place of the legislature and making law instead of just interpreting the law. To some degree this is so and to another degree it is not so. The Constitution incorporates all of the common law of England into the law of the United States. The common law is in fact Judge made law. It is how the civil law developes and changes. Each court looks back at how the same or similar cases have been handled in the past and applies the law to the new cases before it. Many times this means that the civil law is developing, changing, growing and sometimes becoming something different that what it was before. We live in a changing world and new circumstances continue to arise where the old law and old prior cases have to be applied. Change is inevitable. But the same thing occurs in the area of Constitutional law. If the federal government or a state passes a law that exceeds the scope of the authority granted to it by the Constitution and someone sues to try to stop the violation, the court has to hear the case and decide if the federal government or state government exceeded its authority granted in the Constitution. This jurisdiction over cases brought against the state and federal government is specifically granted to the court in the Constitution. Sometimes, as in all of the criminal procedural rights cases, civil rights cases, religion cases and privacy rights cases in the past 60 years, the court's decisions may at first appear to be legislating because they have struck down practices that had existed for many years. But that is not really the case. The court is merely carrying out its function of deciding cases that it is authorized to decide by the Constitution. Each branch is not expected to to check or balance the other. They need to stay out of the other branch's domain. They are to simply carry out their own function and in doing so the separation of powers becomes a check and balance system. The last thing we need is a special set of judges to monitor or supervise the president. We have a system that really works quite well whereby a case against the government can brought in federal court, and it can reach the supreme court, whereby the actions of the president or the contgress can be held to be unconstitutional i.e., exceeding their authority, thereby rendering those actions unenforceable. I wouldn't want judges monitoring the president, other than what is authorized in the Constitution, any more that I would want the president to be monitoring judges or the legislature. And don't forget that actual high crimes and misdemeanors by a president subjects the president to impeachment. Plus, this is a representative democracy and an election is comeing,

Answer 3

The checks and balances have worked well for a long time if you were to add the influence of these other forces you would cause so many divisions that the problems would get lost in all the challenges to the combatants pride and beliefs

Answer 4

when you have people of differing views for our direction you will always get opposition to idea's.Hitler with his propaganda control of the masses established this as a fact.Modern leaders has in some form or way resorted to this as a means to control.
So most feel if they can control the media they can manipulate the masses and control the people to follow their agenda

Answer 5

Mass media and religions have influence, but not power. Economics doesn't fit here.

Answer 6

the bottomline is that money is the ultimate power.
if you could take money out of the criteria
you might get an honest government