Question

The principle of separation of powers , federalism, and checks and balance are all key features of the constitution. Discuss what these principles entail and give an example of each.

Considering our contemporary political climate, should these principles be strengthened, weaken or kept about the same, and why

Answer 1

Answer1:

The principle of separation of powers:

The principle of separation of powers states that the executive, legislative, and judiciary powers of government should be divided into different branches and not concentrated in one. These departments should be separate and distinct because of the corrupting nature of power. If the body that made the laws could also enforce them and adjudicate disputes, it would likely do so in a preferential manner, undermining the rule of law and basic fairness. Power, in other words, must be checked, or it will be abused. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison calls the combination of legislative, executive, and judicial powers “the very definition of tyranny.”

The Framers did not think that merely separating powers on paper would do the trick. The Constitution gives each branch of government some powers over the others to permit it to resist encroachments. For instance, the veto power gives the President a check on Congress. The Constitution therefore not only divides power but also sets it against itself, thereby creating a dynamism within the workings of government that uses the interests and incentives of those in government to enforce constitutional limits.

The separation of powers doctrine also intends to improve the energy and efficiency of government by allowing each branch to specialize, in effect, in order to fulfill its unique function.

Principle of Federalism:

Federalism (in the US context) is the idea that the central (federal) government should have a greater share of political power with respect to the individual states. This was a big issue leading up to the civil war, with the Southern states arguing that individual states had sovereignty to decide whether they should allow slavery to persist, and the Northern states holding that the federation could outlaw the practice in all states of the Union. It's still a noteworthy issue today, though the federal government has become progressively more powerful; most of the recent legal challenges to the ACA were in one way or another cast as State's Rights (i.e. anti-federalist) issues.

Anti-federalism gets a bad odor in the press because the most obvious and salient cases involve some very low-minded attitudes: support of slavery; opposition to universal healthcare; resistance to things like the minimum wage, worker's protections, carbon reductions, etc. But it is a valid and necessary balance in US governance to keep the power of the central bureaucracy in check.

Principle of Checks and Balance:

Checks and balances refers to the different mechanisms that prevents one branch of government from gaining too much power and dominating the other branches. The Executive – President, Legislature – Congress and Judiciary – Courts – all have various powers over one another. The Founding Fathers meticulously created these provisions to encourage co-operation and compromise, with James Madison being quoted as stating “ambition must counteract ambition”. There are various checks and balances that each branch has over the other. The President appoints judges to the judiciary, such as Sonio Sotomayor in 2009. However, to stop the judiciary from being obedient to the executive, the Founding Fathers gave the judiciary the power to convict a President of impeachment. At the same time, the legislature can initiate and conduct the impeachment trial, such as Bill Clinton in 1999. These provisions prevent one branch from obtaining too much power and stop a “tyranny”. The Founding Fathers did not want a King dominating political decisions and these checks and balances prevent such a thing. Checks and balances are not only focused on the executive however as the legislature also has constraints. The President can veto legislation from the legislature, such as Keystone Pipeline XXL in 2015. However, the legislature can overturn a presidential veto, such as Bush’s Farm Bill Veto being overridden in 2008. The legislature meanwhile is responsible for confirming executive appointments to the judiciary and executive branches. The judiciary can also declare laws from the legislature unconstitutional and there is no appeals process to this. On the other hand, the legislature can initiate a constitutional amendment that can negate a Supreme Court decision however, such as the sixteenth amendment that mandating income tax following the Supreme Court decision in Pollock vs. Farmers Trust and Loanee Company in 1895. The above evidence details some of the checks and balances that exist in the US government system. These checks cannot be revoked because they have constitutional sovereignty and as a result, encourage co-operation and compromise. Branches of government will be wary of in acting certain decisions if there is a fear of consequence from other branches or if they will be simply negated. Nixon may have not resigned without the fear of impeachment in the Senate in 1974 for example. To summarize, the principle and practice of checks and balances in US government prevents one branch from obtaining too much power and dominating the other branches.