Explore BrainMass

Three Branches of Government

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the solution, here!

How are the three branches of U.S. government supposed to interact? -Is the system successful? why or why not?

Are the branches balanced in power why or why not?

How was the conflict between supporters of a strong federal government and champions of states rights characterized then, as opposed to now?

How could things have been designed more efficiently, if at all?

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com September 25, 2018, 11:33 am ad1c9bdddf - https://brainmass.com/history/north-american-history/three-branches-of-government-191563

Solution Preview


Let's take a closer look.

1. How are the three branches of U.S. government supposed to interact? Is the system successful? why or why not?- Are the branches balanced in power? Why or why not?

Our forefathers divided the government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The reason that our forefathers divided the government into three separate branches was because they planned to implement a democratic government that would work to serve the citizens and not regulate them, by providing a balance of power, where no one person or group would wield too much power. As we have seen in Washington D.C. in recent years, when one party controls both the Congress and Executive branches of government, where they can get by with nearly anything.

Then, neither the founding fathers nor the people of the future United States wished to see an executive branch that had too much strength. In addition, the many instances of excessive taxation imposed upon the colonists by Parliament and enforced by King George III impressed upon the designers of the Constitution the need to also keep the legislative branch in check. Subsequently, the design and structure of the government as outlined by the Constitution became one of checks and balances, so that none of the three branches could have excessive power and each could maintain control of the other two. Therefore, checks and Balances is a system that it extremely necessary in maintaining a balance of power among elected officials. Preventing any one particular group from obtaining a majority influence is essential when having a government that is ruled by the people (http://www.helium.com/items/869262-checks-and-balances-in-the-us-government-why-we-need-them-and-how-they-work).

It seems to have worked. The checks and balances system outlined within the Constitution is quite simple. Each of the three branches of government (judicial, legislative, and executive) is granted certain unique powers, divided between the three so that none is too powerful. In addition to this system of balance, for each unique power another branch has the ability to act as a safeguard or to "check" the power of the other. For example, if the legislature drafts a law which is contrary to the Constitution, the judiciary has the power to overturn said law when it is challenged in the court system. In an ideal situation, everyone would play by the rules, but for the instances where they do not the checks and balances system is in place (http://www.helium.com/items/1028641-checks-and-balances-in-the-us-government-why-we-need-them-and-how-they-work).

Specifically, the term checks and balances refer to the rules and procedures that allow one branch to limit the power of another. For example the president can veto a law passed by congress. In the past, this system has been challenged but its integrity was upheld. This is common during times of a national crisis or panic. During his tenure as president, Franklin Roosevelt was thought to have endangered this system with several of his "New Deal" programs; some of which were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Also, the ability of ...

Solution Summary

In reference to interaction, success and power, this solution discusses the three branches of U.S. government. It also explains the conflict between supporters of a strong federal government and champions of states rights then, as opposed to now and whether or not things could have been designed more efficiently.