Is there a power struggle between the different governing bodies?

Question

or are they pretty much the same?
If you can explain how they differ or how they don't-it will be appreciated.

Great answers so far--thank you for the information.

Answer 1

Yes. The the reason the Founders set up the checks and balances in the constitution was because each branch, each government employee as a matter of self-preservation tries to gain more power. That is why if the judiciary gets to out of line Congress can remove it from the Courts jurisdiction. Or only congress can declare war, while the President is the commander-in-chief. Where the President can send troops in without a declaration of war, since congress controls the purse string if the military runs out of funds the troops come home.

In reality it started with Marbury v. Madison when it gave the Supreme Court the right to review constitutionality of law in the earliey 19th century

The Best way to explain their differing responsibilities is just get a copy of the constitiution and a copy of the Federalist Papers.

Answer 2

Human interactions with one another can be explained by a duality: Either they Cooperate, or they Compete

Cooperation allows them to do more things, Competition forces them to do it better and more efficiently. It's pretty much been this way for millions of years of human evolution, on the individual, family, tribal, city-state, state, national, and empire level.

Power struggles are not going to go away.

Are competing governing bodies the same? No. They have different trips. Right now, the competition is between International Socialism vs National Socialism vs National Free-Enterprise Capitalism vs Global Free-Enterprise Capitalism and a huge jumble of religions and values and a hodge-podge of superstition and pseudo-science and real science.

Should make for the same tasty entertainment our ancestors experienced.

The winner: News at 11!

Answer 3

For a start you might try understanding what people say in the correct context, and not engaging in the intellectually bankrupt practice of cutting out soundbites from their work and pretending that they are talking about problems in evolutionary theory. If you were half familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's work you will know that he was particularly angered by creationists taking things he had said out of context. Edit: "show me how i've taken them out of context, i dare ya!" Alright 1. The horse family did evolve from a four-toed fox-sized creature to modern horses over a period of 50 million years. What we have in the fossil record is not a continuous sequence illustrating gradual change but a series of representative species along the path of change. Important points: * Evolution of the horse did occurr * Evolution of the horse is illustrated sequentially in the fossil record * The fact that we don't see transitions does not mean there were no transitions. It may mean that the fossil record is better at preserving evidence of large stable ecosystems than small or rapidly changing ones. It is in the latter type of environment that evolution is known to proceed the most rapidly. 2. Transitional fossils are comparitively rare in the fossil record. His essay discusses the reason for their rarity. Important points: * The fossil record shows transitions between major groups. Evolution, in other words. * "Precious little" > 0. There are transitional fossils, just very few of them. * From the same essay: "Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale".

Answer 4

YEs, and the gov't was designed that way on prupose to keep this country safe from dictatorship. It is called a system of checks and balances, which means that for one branch top function, it must be supported by the other two. The president can't make laws w/o congress, and vice-versa, and the courts watch over the whole country and punish those who break the laws, and find the best ways to apply those laws to practical life...

Answer 5

The U.S. Constitution designated three governmental powers: legislative, judicial, and executive. Each were admonished with responsibilities, and each were to execute those responsibilities. The original intent of the Constitution was not to create a "power" struggle, but to "balance" the legislative, judical, and execute branches. Any "power struggle" between the three branches has been determined through political expediency.

The American public has been led to believe that "our vote counts"; when, in reality, it probably doesn't.

Answer 6

Absolutely. Right now, the Administrative branch is trying to usurp powers from the legsilative and judicial branch. They are trying to fight back, but not too successfully/

Answer 7

yes. Everyone wants power. Power hungry people want all the power. But power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Answer 8

No
But the religious extremists in the Middle East and the U.S.
want you to think so.

Answer 9

personal greed issues, and genuine caring Republicans mainly have enough money......and, and example....Hillary Clinton says about the North korean problem>> "Part of the reason for these problems is the Bush administrations policy on the situation" HA! I feel that N. Korea won't do anything. I feel Iran and Syria may want to get more into the insurgency business by hiring their oppressed poor, including Afghanis. We will just keep fighting off insurgents. I have a good friend from Iran who thinks that if Iraqs economy picks up, as it should, without terrorism of innocent to stop it, Irans youth will want what Iraq has, lkie Afghanistan wants now too. He si presently, with paranoia, also buying Iraqi Dinar...lol Russia and China have too many oil, interests in iran to get DIRECTLY involved. Noone struck Israel when they fought back lebanon, that tells you something. Israel would crush Syria and Lebanon militarily, very quickly. Japan alone (besides us, Britain, S. Korea) would crush N. Korea. And Iran would be done within a month. My Irani friend said most Iranis secretly WANT a capatalistic society, but they don't want to get "sang-sarred" for saying so. <> It is my opinion that maybe some of the above mentioned may happen, but more than likely, the iraqi economy will just fluorish, and other countries will make threats so THEY can have a better economy too. Realize, they don't have what WE realize as even POLICE in Iran (the way we know it) or social security, or ALOT of things. Also, from EXTREMELY good sources, the death count of Iraqi since the war is around 50,000-sad-but compare that to our civil war. AND, look at what happened yesterday!!! Innocent teen girls and below age ten girls kidnapped and killed by terrorists???? HOW are these people dying? From direct orders of Oppressors, that's how. And how do they get them to do it?, not with religion. With promises. As soon as the oppressed terrorists figure out that REGARDLESS of religion, the promise of FREEDOM and PROSPERITY (food, water and non-oppressive leadership included) is ALOT longer lasting than a run and gun of innocents, they'll come around........but as to hillary's comment............................Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House?
Christopher Ruddy
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House!
Now that sounds more than far-fetched. And certainly President Bush would rather see bin Laden's head on a platter than to have him as a dinner guest.

But a senior former CIA agent who served in the Middle East for almost two decades fighting terrorists thinks that bin Laden may believe that, like fellow terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, he may find himself someday a guest of a future U.S. president.

This former CIA officer, Robert Baer, recently wrote the explosive book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism."

Baer writes that when he sees Arafat "standing in the Rose Garden at the White House or when I hear that a CIA director has met privately with him at some desert tent, I wonder sometimes if Arafat's example doesn't make Osama bin Laden consider that he, too, might become a statesman in time."

Baer's point seems fantastic. However, we now know for a certainty that Arafat has masterminded and backed too many terrorist acts to count, from the Munich massacre to jet hijackings and worse.

A veteran of the Mideast, Baer knows Arafat. Baer writes that while "terrorist organizations operate like the most complicated interlocking directorate ever created," he discovered that many of the trails of these groups and their activities "converge at the feet of Yasser Arafat."

Yet today our liberal media prefer to describe Arafat as a freedom fighter. Baer's observations are deemed politically incorrect.

That may be one reason his book, with many important revelations, with a foreword by Seymour Hersh and published by Random House, has gotten such little media attention since it hit bookstores earlier this year.

Perhaps a companion book might have been titled: "Speak No Evil: Why A Veteran CIA Officer Should Keep His Mouth Shout About How Bill Clinton Undermined America's National Security."

While Baer fairly criticizes problems in the CIA and its handling of terrorism from the days of the Reagan and Bush administrations, he also clearly shows that the infrastructure of the CIA's ability to fight terrorism completely collapsed under Bill Clinton.

Here are just some of Baer's key points:

In 1991, the CIA closed up its activities in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. During the Clinton years things got even worse, when CIA operatives around the globe were directed away from spying on the bad guys and told to start worrying about "human rights, economic globalization, the Arab-Israel conflict." By 1995, the Clinton administration thought spy operations were so unimportant that a CIA analyst who had never served as a spy or even overseas was made director of operations, the CIA's chief spy.

Iran remains a major player in the terrorist world. Baer says that in 1982, Arafat "had put his entire worldwide terrorist network at Iran's disposal." Baer believes that the Iranians were clearly the culprits behind the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in the early 1980s. In 1996, bin Laden formed an alliance with Iran. The purpose of the alliance was simple: Attack America.

The Clinton White House's gross negligence and malfeasance was demonstrated by its handling of Saddam Hussein. Baer states that in 1995, top staffers at the National Security Council prevented a planned coup by Iraqi military leaders against Saddam Hussein. Baer was the top CIA man in Northern Iraq working with Iraqi dissidents.
Baer also reveals just how much the Clinton White House sought to protect Hussein.
In 1995 Baer was summoned by the CIA back from Iraq to Washington. Upon reporting to CIA headquarters, a CIA superior told him why he was called home: "Tony Lake [Bill Clinton's national security adviser] ordered the FBI to investigate you for trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein."

After months of investigation, the charges were found to be baseless and dropped.

Like many other CIA veterans who were thwarted from doing their jobs by their own government, Baer retired. Still, the CIA gave him due recognition. He was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal.

But the coddling of Hussein was not isolated to just targeting Baer and removing him from Iraq.

In fact, the Clinton White House clearly decided to keep and maintain Saddam Hussein in power. [Note: I suspected this back in 1998 and wrote about it in "Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill Clinton."]

In one of the most important revelations in "See No Evil," Baer reveals that Saddam Hussein might well have been deposed by his own troops, especially if the economic sanctions had been rigorously applied.

But with U.S. complicity, Saddam Hussein was able to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil by shipping them overland through NATO ally Turkey.

During the mid-'90s Baer says, the smuggled oil through Turkey "was a lifeline for Saddam, who used the money to fund his intelligence services and Special Republican Guards – the forces that kept him alive."

The pipeline of smuggled oil was no hidden, disputed fact. Baer reports the Iraqi oil trucks stretched back anywhere from 20 miles to 70 miles as they waited to cross into Turkey.

Baer was baffled. He writes, "What I couldn't understand was why the White House didn't intervene." He says the U.S. could easily have closed down the truck pipeline into Turkey.

"It was almost as if the White House wanted Saddam to have a little walking around money," Baer writes.

Baer concludes that the Clinton administration "helped Saddam pay for his praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot."

Why would Bill Clinton, our president, do such a thing? Why would he help Saddam Hussein at the very time his public rhetoric against him was so strong?

Nobody who has studied Bill Clinton should be surprised by his duplicity. The facts show, and future historians will discover, that Bill Clinton was no friend of the United States.