Each branch has its own powers in the government, but the system of checks and balances keeps each branch from gaining too much power and overstepping its bounds. The checks and balances were originally put in place to protect the newly formed democracy from turning into another monarchy. Though stalemates do occur, for the most part, the three branches work together to promote the will of the people. Stalemates are bound to happen with differing opinions. When the executive branch is made of a majority of one party and the legislative branch is made up of a majority of a different party.
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.
Should Judges (i.e. District, Superior, and Supreme) in North Carolina be elected by the citizens or appointed by the Governor? Jonathan Mills North Carolina Wesleyan College Author Note This paper was prepared for Legal Environment, taught by Professor KizzyV Crawford Heath Abstract NO, it is unethical for judges to hear cases for which they may have a conflict of interest. I think it is far better for the Governor to nominate judges from a list of lawyers vetted for their professional qualifications and judicial temperament. Most elected judges once elected make bias decisions.
The two main political parties in the United States, the Democratic and Republican parties, have opposing social, economic, and political views. Because of the opposition, it is possible for different views to be enacted into governmental matters. It is impossible for all people to agree in a democratic nation, and because of this the institutionalization of political parties allows for different views to be heard and for change to occur in order to satisfy the people. If one party’s views were the only opinions heard in the government, the government would in turn only have one source of power and therefore be despotic. The institutionalization of political parties avoids despotism.
Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. As a result, they proposed The Bill of Rights, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our
Checks and balances provide a way to make sure no one branch reaches total power. For instance, Congress can try to pass a law but the President can veto any bill that comes his way. Also, if the President ends up doing something unconstitutional, Congress has the power to conduct a trial and impeach the President if necessary. In essence, these checks and balances prevent the US from becoming a totalitarian country. The court case of Marbury v Madison happened when Marbury’s was withheld by Madison and ended up suing James.
Presidents use their appointees to cement their legacy, trying to choose individuals who share their ideology. I know that has become a dirty world in how the government uses to interpret the law, but right now, there is a very bright line separating conservative and progressive issues. One should nominate someone who believes in the same causes he or she does. Choosing a nominee who is not, already a judge has the advantage of giving less fodder to the opposition, because she has no opinions available for scrutiny. On the other hand, she could turn out to be something other than the president expected.
A problem that this form of government can face is that different branches of the government can sometimes receive elected officials that have agendas on his/her list. This can present a problem, because the elected official, or branch, can prevent certain bills or decisions from taking place. For example, congress will sometimes put unnecessary items in bills, that the president does not think is necessary, but since the president needs that particular issue handled, does not veto the whole bill. This is why there are advocates that push for the president to be given the power to call for a line-item
By creating a government divided into the presidential, legislative, and judicial branches meant that no one’s power could come into absolute power. There is however a downside to having three branches of government. If there is a democratic president and one of the branches is a republican run branch they may not agree on some of the same ideas. When we have different branches vetoing bills and not making them laws this in turn affects the citizens who may need the change. Checks and Balances The system of checks and balances is part of our constitution.
(Bradley & Goldsmith, pg. 2091) Congress intended the President to have this kind of power so that he could use his powers of military force against a foreign enemy/force without having to go through the necessary, long steps of declaring war. Without this power, the President would be at a “unilateral disadvantage” and not be able to take and carry out the war effectively. (Bradley & Goldsmith, pg. 2091) Though, there could be some delegation within that matter to argue that the President does not have the full powers of war because they are not “implicitly delegated” by the Congress to the President.