Separation of powers, a term ascribed to
French Enlightenment political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu,
[1][2] is a model for the
governance of
democratic states, having its origins in an ancient idea of
mixed government. The model is also known as
trias politica. The model was first developed in
ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the
Roman Republic as part of the uncodified
Constitution of the Roman Republic. Under this model, the
state is divided into branches or
estates, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. The normal division of estates is into an
executive, a
legislature, and a
judiciary.
United States: three branches
-
In the United States Constitution Article I Section 8 places all the power of the government in the Congress which makes all the laws. Since the Constitution was written the Executive and Judicial branches have attempted to place checks and balances on the power of Congress. The Supreme Court established the implication of [Judicial review] in Marbury vs Madison.[9] The federal government refers to the branches as "branches of government", while some systems use "government" to describe the executive. The Executive branch has attempted to usurp power from Congress arguing for [Separation of powers] to include being the Commander in Chief of a standing army since the Civil war, executive orders, emergency powers and security classifications since WWII, national security, signing statements, and now the concept of a unitary executive .
[edit] Checks and balances
To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, and to induce the branches to cooperate, governance systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", a term which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances in the government of the United States include various procedural rules that allow one branch to limit another, such as the authority of the president to veto legislation passed by Congress, or the power of Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Separation of powers. (2008). Separation of Powers. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powersUnited_States:_three_branches
Just thought a refresher might be useful... Actually, something I read on someone's blog today really hit home with me. This was a historic election. People turned out in droves because they were anxious for change in this country, correct? And the people have spoken. I voted for a third party candidate that I KNEW had absolutely no chance of winning. However, ,I believe that the main reason he had no chance was simply because people refuse to research the candidates in the primary stage of the election process. But I digress. How much did you research the congressmen/women and senators that you elected this November 4? Because it is they, not the President, who hold the majority of the power and make the laws. Likewise, any proposal from the President has to pass through congress first. So it is seriously impossible to place all the blame for the state of things in this country on one single man/woman, as it is also foolish to place all expectations of change and all hope in one man/woman.
People have asked that those who did not vote for Barak Obama to please respect him as the president elect. And I will. But, as was mentioned on that blog I read, why is it that democrats who are asking us to respect and support Barak Obama could not afford that same respect to our current president? Rememebr, that your children listen to what you say. Your disrespect for the President may have a trickle down effect that you are unaware of. Constant disrespect of people in authority may lead children to the disrespect of not only the president, but local leaders and coaches. Since disrespect is ok.
I will absolutely respect the President-elect. However, respect does not consititue agreement, and I am afraid that if this country turns down a blatantly socialistic road, I must disagree, respectfully, of course. But that is another blog.