51, therefore government is necessary to control its people but with the limit power so that there will be no self-interested ambitions held by government. With the separation of powers, each branch will have way to limit the power of other branches. For example, “Congress is given the chief lawmaking power under the Constitution, but a bill can become a law only if the president signs it. The Supreme Court has the power to reject a law formulated by Congress and signed by the president if it is contrary to the Constitution” (Edward S. Greenberg). With this way, the self-interest ambition of one branch will counter the ambition of other branches just like James Madison wrote in federalist no.
The judicial branch has a non-partisan point of view to the Law. The judicial branch doesn’t side with the minority of the majority party because It bases it decision on what the constitution says and how it was intended when the Founding Fathers created it. Both majority and minority groups are looked as equals in the eyes of the judicial branch. In the middle of most and least democratic is the executive branch. The executive branch is vested in the President of the United States.
Judicial Review is the power of a court to determine the constitutionality of a governmental action. In easier terms, this advantage gives the Judicial Branch the opportunity to prove ANY law unconstitutional, and choose which laws can pass or fail. Just recently in 1998, the Supreme Courts determined that the line-item veto is unconstitutional, ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand power to the president. This checked the Executive power and left the former president, Clinton, knowing that once a bill becomes a law, his sole power is to carry it out. One of the main benefits to the Judicial Branch is the power to interpret laws.
Although historians generally regard the Articles of Confederation as a complete failure, they were actually a necessary step in the formation of the Constitution which laid out a balanced government in accordance with the ideals of the American Revolution. Adopted by the Second Continental Congress at the height of the Revolution in 1777, the Articles of Confederation reflected the fears of American citizens, in particular, the fear of tyrannical rule. When the Articles failed, a stronger and more stable government replaced it, the government America has today, defined by the Constitution. Errors made under the weak Articles of Confederation were the catalyst for the ratification of the Constitution. The Articles played an important role by proving a strong central government was not to be feared, it was a necessity.
Even though the constitution was passed, much to William Shatnire’s satisfaction, there was still a good deal of debate over whether it should be a strict or loose interpretation. Shatnire’s fellow federalists thought it should be loose and the Anti-federalists wanted it to be strict. Hamilton, just like Shatnire, believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution, which meant that “the Constitution “implied” the power to use whatever means were “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers” (248), so that the central government could become more powerful. One situation in which William Shatnire witnessed the resulting factors of the newly ratified Constitution was a financial problem the country faced, during the first years of the new federal government, which was a time when it had hard time raising money. At first the Congress took on a tariff on imports known as the Tariff of 1789.
In Boumediene versus Bush case, the court voted that the detainees have the right to habeas corpus, because Cuba’s base is technically American territory. Chief Justice Roberts is against the majority vote. His thoughts are that the court is “overreaching” and fears that the decision made by non-political and non-accountable judges might strain the control of the nations on foreign policies. (Greenhouse, L., 2008) The role of the President as commander in chief is to put in force “laws passed by the Congress”. (Levin-Waldman, O.M., 2012, p.48) He also can do whatever he feels is needed to “protect and defend the Constitution”.
(GCU, 2012) Responsibilities are specifies the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, requires trial by jury, defines treason and its enforcement, and states that the Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between states, ambassadors, and dignitaries from other countries. The three branches of government are supposed to work in harmony with each other while guarding the limited power each branch was granted by the people. The intention of these three branches is to keep the balance of power in the favor of the people. They were put into place so that not one branch has too much power and be able to run the Congress in deciding which laws are passed and are not passed. By spreading the power into three different branches, this ensures that the balance of power is equal and not all in person or a team of people’s
Checks and Balances The system of checks and balances is part of our constitution. This system guarantees that no part of the government can become too powerful. Each branch is made sure that the power of the other branches is balanced between them. (Kelly, 2011) The Legislative Branch is given the power to make the laws as far as the Executive Branch, they are given the power to care out those laws, and the Judicial Branch is given the power to construe the laws. Together they have achieved to a workable balance with no branch possessing more power than the rest.
As a member of the US House of Representatives, Madison reviewed the Constitution making changes were he felt was necessary. Many Representatives argued that Congress did not have the authority to make changes to the wording of the Constitution. This made the changes that Madison made to the Constitution, amendments following Article VII. The House approved seventeen amendments, those seventeen amendments were sent to the Senate where they approved twelve. The twelve amendments were sent to the states for approval.
Sandel suggest discarding the whole culture of hiding moral convictions from debate because it is unnatural. This suggestion seems to be heading along the right path to creating a more reflective democracy. He is essentially asking for a “free market place of ideas” to ensue and that people will be swayed by truth and conviction. Sandel is very invested in discussing the purpose, the core of things and this leading us to a better form of democratic debate. It is a very ideal way of government and would require a high degree of autonomy on the part of the citizens and it would most likely cause slow progress.