English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is Separation of powers and the system of checks and balances created in the Constitution working the way the Framers envisioned?
Between only two branches of government, describe one check that each branch has on the other and discuss a specific corresponding example to illustrate this check.

2007-09-23 09:11:05 · 6 answers · asked by mrhuangsta 3 in Politics & Government Government

6 answers

Congress (Legislative Branch) passes laws.

President (Executive) must sign/approve them. Without his approval - no law. (Check on Legislative)

Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) can over turn laws and interprets the laws and decided whether they stay. (Check on both Legislative and Executive)

President nominates the Supreme Court members - but it requires the Senate (Legislative) to approve them. (Check on Executive and Judicial)

So the President can stop a law from being enacted by the Congress. The Supreme Court can strike down a law the the legislature signed and the President approved. And, in order for a judge to get onto the Supreme Court, the legislature approves them. Seems like a pretty good checks and balance to me.

2007-09-23 09:24:39 · answer #1 · answered by pyz01 7 · 0 0

It was for a while -- but the balances have been skewed for most of the past half-century, since Congress started hitting re-election rates in the 90+% range, indicating that people were holding onto power for power's sake.

And in the past 5 years, checks and balances have been completely thrown out the window by an executive branch that considers itself able to ignore any law at will.

The specific examples you seek can be found in Article I thru III of the Constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT: The post above about Congress and the Iraq occupation highlights one check -- and mis-states the legal issues.

Under Article I, Congress has sole authority to declare war, sole authority to regulate spending on the military, and shared authority to set regulations for behavior of armed forces.

Under Article II, the Executive has powers as commander in chief to give any lawful order, within the bounds set by Congress in Article I. Congress cannot "micro-manage" specific decisions, without enacting a law to do so.

2007-09-23 09:24:04 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

Basically the short answer is if congress wants to pass something the senate also has to agree and vice versa. It keeps them all in check until it involves money in theoir own pockets on this they very rarely disagree.

2007-09-23 09:14:54 · answer #3 · answered by debbie f 5 · 0 0

there is in the original cosntitution the seperation of the legal and the juriprudence power and the polotical power
but now they are inter mingeled by the new era of the dominance of power of money over the politician and the mass media

2007-09-23 09:38:34 · answer #4 · answered by egyank 3 · 0 0

the legislative and executive branches. look at the war, congress is trying micro-manage it using what they're responsible for. the president vetoes it. the congress ALREADY gave permission to the executive branch for this war.

2007-09-23 09:19:40 · answer #5 · answered by andy h. 4 · 0 1

im not sure what your saying,but republicans need to get their head out of their bum!

2016-05-17 05:33:53 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers