The Us System of Chechs and Balances Is Innefective Discuss

1219 Words5 Pages
“The US system of checks and balances is ineffective” Discuss The Founding Fathers feared tyranny and dictatorship so decided to follow the Montesquieu theory of the separation of powers, and extend it to the constitutional system of checks and balances. The USA was a new country throwing off what it saw as the tyranny of the British King and Parliament. It therefore made sure the President was not a king and that Congress was also limited in its powers, with regard to president, states and Constitution. All the branches of government are in theory limited by each other. The Purpose of the constitution was to limit the power of government and give freedom and opportunity to citizens. Although many feel that checks and balances encourage bi partisanship and have worked for 250 years, others feel the system is being abused, relies on party politics and can create gridlock. It is important to asses both sides of the argument to gained balanced judgment on whether or not checks and balances are effective. The US system of checks and balances are ineffective because they are too vague can be abused. Congress has elastic clauses which mean they can make any law they like. An example of this is congresses power to declare war power, despite the President being Commander-In-Chief, the last time this occurred was in 1941 on Japan. Congress’ laws can also be vetoed by President. A full veto can occur, whereby the President can completely reject a bill. For example Clinton vetoed the budget reconciliation bill 1995 to save Arctic wildlife refuge, plus 35 other bills. However, only about 3% of bills are vetoed, and Bush did not veto any bills 2001-2005. However, Bush did use the ‘pocket veto’ in 2007, when he claimed that he had pocket vetoed H.R. 1585, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008”, even though the House of Representatives had designated
Open Document