do you think the idea of checks and balances in the US gov't still functions today as it was intended?

Question

one branch of government watches over and complements the others... legislative, judicial, and executive in full working order if not full agreement...

is it still true today? was it ever? why or why not?

Answer 1

I think that it is still functioning in the way that you describe, and the way it was intended. But I'm wondering if the system is outdated? The government seems to be overstepping its boundaries on what it decides it has the right to legislate. They are increasingly deciding how American people can live their lives. So the checks and balances doesn't really work if the consensus amongst the three branches is that, yes, we do have the power (and the right, and the will) to dictate what you can and can not do in your personal life.

The Government has become its own entity - out of touch with the reality of the American people, and full of partisan politicians. They run campaigns full of lies. We vote for them, and then are unhappy with the results. Then someone says "you voted for them, they represent you." But they can not be trusted to do as they say and truly represent their constituency. So maybe it's time that the American people had the right to be more involved. Simply voting for a representative is a false sense of power. I think we need the power to hold our chosen representatives accountable for their actions (and inactions).

Answer 2

The idea of checks and balances is just as good as most other theories. In theory it works perfectly. In reality not so well.

Part of the system of checks and balances that's rarely discussed is the people. We have the ability to determine who is elected and to vote for new leaders when those in office have gone against our wishes (term limits without term limit legislation) and we have the ability to strike down laws as a member of a jury when called and to investigate anything when serving as a member of a Grand Jury (however, very few citizens know or do this).

Since 1913, the central banking system of the United States - which controls our nation's monetary and economic policies in reality - has been a privately owned corporation. The Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor does it have any Reserves. Our entire currency system is inflationary because it's not back by anything but faith in the currency.

Since neither Congress, nor the Executive branch (in reality) controls the Fed (their terms are for 14 years) and their paychecks come directly from the owners of the Federal Reserve the system of checks and balances, while it sounds good in theory, hasn't worked in reality for about 92 years.

Answer 3

That's the way the system was designed to operate. It still does, but the actions of Bush, at the behest of Cheney, have been to undermine checks & balances to seize more power for the Executive. The Supreme Court did its job by slapping down his Gunatanamo knagaroo trials, now it's up to Congress to control an executive that has surpassed his limits.

Answer 4

It is working just like the framers intended. People say they are tired of all the bickering in Washington, be glad that we live in a country where we can disagree. Last night is an excellent example, Pres. Bush laid out his agenda and immediately the Dem's began to fire away at it, just like they are supposed to. I'm no Democrat but God help us if one party controls it all (Dem. or Repub.). One thing I'd like to see is more parties involved in the process; the more parties we have the more likely the check and balance system works. Just my opinion.