Checks and balances In the United States Constitution, there is a specific system designed to prevent one of the three branches from gaining control or much power. This system is known as Checks and Balances. The system has been put on the effect due to many instances over the course of the year history. The designed system of Checks and Balances is very open yet complex. For example, if the President executive is not fulfilling his responsibilities as a leader or behaving inappropriately, the Legislative Branch Congress can limit him through the power of impeachment. The Judicial Branch can limit his power through the process of judicial review. This is when a justice can declare a law unconstitutional. The Congress can propose a bill to the President that they feel he is not in the best interests of the nation. These are fundamental of government under which different branches are empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are formed to share power. The executive, the legislature, and the judiciary are the backbone of the government to carry out his duty and to fulfill the obligation of the nation interest. The process of the appointment power that fall under the president, are nomination politics. The nomination politics take the process where the president formal appointee is received by the senate. The presiding officer then sends them to the nomination to the concerned committee where the committee chairs the schedule hearing. For the nomination to proceed to second level ,the majority members of the committee must then report that nomination to the floor. At this point, it depend with the senate majority on the floor to vote for the confirmation, thereafter the nominee will wait the signed commission... ... middle of paper ... ...ernment, or cabinet, ordinarily may dissolve the parliament. In one-party political systems, informal checks and balances may operate when organs of an authoritarian or totalitarian regime compete for power Works Cited • Henry J. Abraham, Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). • Henry J. Abraham, Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999). • Louis Fisher, Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1985). • Joseph Harris, The Advice and Consent of the Senate (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953). • G. Calvin MacKenzie, The Politics of Presidential Appointments (New York: Free Press, 1981)
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
...y the framers were not in vain. Checks and balances do work and it is one of the greatest strategies of fair governmental system in the world.
Checks and Balances. Checks and balances is a system that is a part of out U.S. Constitution. This system was put in to place so that no part of government would have too much power. The three branches: judicial, legislative and executive are constantly granting and checking the other branches actions, this is to make sure no one person can gain an excessive amount of control in government. For example according to ," the legislative branch is in charge of making laws. The executive branch can veto the law, thus making it harder for the legislative branch to pass the law. The judicial branch may also say that the law is unconstitutional and thus make sure it is not a law.The legislative branch can also remove a president or judge that is not doing his/her job properly. The executive branch appoints judges and the legislative branch approves the choice of the executive branch. Again, the branches check and balance each other so that no one branch has too much power".
Rossum, R. A. (2001). Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: the irony of constitutional democracy. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.
Janda, Kenneth. "2 The Constitution." The Challenge of Democracy Government in America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Newmyer, R. Kent. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge:
The Warren Court represents the years from 1953 to 1969 when Earl Warren was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Urofsky, 2001). During the sixteen years of the Warren Court seventeen different men served under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren (Urofsky, 2001). These associate judges, and the order in which they took office, played a large part in the decisions that were passed because they affected the shift from a more conservative court in the first half of the Warren Court to a more liberal perspective that was prevalent in the second half of the Warren Court (cite?). It is the later, more liberal era of the Warren Court that is remembered for many of its landmark cases. Of the seventeen justices of the Warren Court there were a few that were consistently influential in decisions and well-known for their opinions. The four most influential and well-known justices other than Chief Justice Warren were Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Joseph Brennan, and Thurgood Marshal...
Glennon, Michael J. When No Majority Rules: The Electoral College and Presidential Succession. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1993, p.20.
Smith, Robert C. "Supreme Court." Encyclopedia of African-American Politics. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2003. African-American History Online. Facts on File, Inc. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
Wills, G. (Ed.). (1982). Introduction. The Federalist papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. (pp. vii – xxiv). New York: Bantam.
Byrd, Robert C. The Senate, 1789-1989: Addresses on the History of the US Senate, Vol. 1. (New York: Bernan Associates, 1989).
Over the course of history and to this day, it is not, nor has it ever been, a requirement for U.S. Supreme Court Justices to have prior judicial experience before entering into office. However, over the past three decades or so it has become a norm for the people who nominate and confirm Supreme Court Justices to look for judicial experience as almost a prerequisite for office (Epstein, 2003). Although the U.S. Government officials have made this a norm, it is unnecessary to require prior judicial experience to those entering the Supreme Court and this norm may even be tainting the original purpose of the Supreme Court that the founders of the Constitution intended for it to have.
A key feature of the unwritten constitution is ‘the Separation of Powers’. This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group. Cooperating with one...