The effectiveness of the three branches of the frederal government in meeting constitutional mandadtes of checks and balances.
2006-10-31 23:40:15 · 9 answers · asked by Ashley L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It's worked for 230 years so far.
2006-10-31 23:45:19 · answer #1 · answered by Thanks for the Yahoo Jacket 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Greetings!
The very people who would have been protected by the scheme of checks and balances are all guilty of committing some form of Constitutional suicide.
Having passed legislation, giving the Courts (Judicial Branch) and the President ( Executive Branch) powers that did not exist and should not exist, it resulted in the scheme becoming null and void.
For example line item veto's, Executive War Powers, and then Supreme Courts arguing public cases.
None of this was meant to be.
Take the Supreme Court for example, (somebody please) common sense would tell you by design the Court was to be placed as a balance. So if a bill were passed, before being signed it would go to the Court to insure it would muster the laws of the Constitution. If it did then it would go to the President and become law with his signing or not law by veto in which there were other measures from the Congress which could over ride this.
Yes this is long winded but, you can see the actual pattern of how the checks and balances were designed and how they would work.
If followed the Rights and Freedoms of all Americans would be insured.
Instead we have Chaos.
Good Luck
2006-10-31 23:49:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seems to be going pretty well with the exception of the Judiciary. Their Constitutional charge is to objectively compare laws against the powers afforded to the government by the Constitution, and if that power is exceeded strike down the offending laws. Instead, they (the court collectively) have decided they had the power to make new laws in order to shape society. It is a "nice thought", but it is not within their granted powers.
2006-10-31 23:49:04 · answer #3 · answered by ML 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not very good right now Bush is trying to eliminate that system and if we keep on listening to the bull from the reps about Kerry he will continue to do it. Kerry doesn't matter he is nor running for anything anyhow. I mean if we are too believe anything Kerry says represents the whole Dem opinion then what about Foley does that mean all reps are pedophiles?
2006-10-31 23:46:52 · answer #4 · answered by sosueme534 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right now it's almost non-existant. The Dem's and Rep's are becomming more like the Shiites & Sunnis, and it's disgusting the heck out of me. They're like little children bickering over how gets to play nintendo first. I'm sick of it!!! I'm a conservative Republican, but in my opinion our entire Gov't needs to be replaced. Get rid of the long timers - Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy (all of them), McCain, Pelosi - Dem's and Rep's alike!!!
2006-10-31 23:49:48 · answer #5 · answered by Jim C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Non-existent.
2006-11-01 00:34:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it has been quite effective in peace time, in times of war the executive branch wields more power. the other 2 branches allow the executive to do things like suspend habeus corpus.
2006-10-31 23:43:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would answer that question truthfully, but I'm afraid someone representing one of those branches would be at my house arresting me. I may be in danger just from writing that answer.
2006-10-31 23:45:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
low
2006-10-31 23:41:34 · answer #9 · answered by q6656303 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋