...branches. For example, the producer is just like the legislative branch. The legislative branch creates laws and chooses what they will be about, and has the executive branch enforce it. And a producer can choose the songs and their meaning and have the artist sing it to the public. The judicial branch is very similar to a manager because a manager can choose if what the artist sings is appropriate for their image. In a like manner, the judicial branch can do constitutional review, and if it passes then the law is created. The Producer (Legislative Branch) can propose the idea and sound of a song (Law) to the Artist (Executive) If the Artist doesn't like the song, they can refuse to record the song. But if the producer decides that it will make more money and success then they can disregard the Artist idea of not recording the song. However, if the artist disobeys the producers rules, then they can have the power to fire the artist. These acts are identical to how the Executive and Legislative branch check each other....
Words: 348 - Pages: 2
...Thomas Jefferson’s Presidential policies and actions slightly stabilize the nation with land expansion and the Embargo Act but strongly did not stabilized the United States government with domestic and foreign affairs. Thomas Jefferson slightly stabilized and somewhat destabilized the nation with land expansion, the Embargo Act, and Judicial Review. Thomas Jefferson was elected to the presidency on March 4, 1801 and had two terms till March 4, 1809, and was elected largely due to the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise in the Constitution between the anti-slavery north and pro-slavery south on the issue of slaves counting in the population. The final decision which Jefferson was helped by Jefferson’s ideology...
Words: 1003 - Pages: 5
...(DQ1) Do you think the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch of government, as the video discusses? Why or why not? Discuss one example you think demonstrates the power of the Supreme Court. Jina’s Response: The Judicial Branch was called "the least dangerous branch" by Alexander Hamilton because they could not be influenced by one side or another, simply have the job of give the "right and necessary" decision on the cases. They can not or will force, their decision will be for judgement. Thus, it's roles and power would be limited. Although, the power is for judgement, they are truly slow. When a case is chosen, it pass months and more months after the decision can be reached, and for me, if they are there for judgement, why the wait?; I understand, the cases are several, but taking months for a decision is just "ridiculous" for me. The opinions about the power they have are really disperse. Some think the Judicial Branch has not power at all, as Alexander Hamilton once said, just for judgement, because the Congress has control over almost all. But many others think that the Judicial Branch it is the most dominant branch of the government, because its power influence each individual of this Nation. I agree, in part, the Judicial Branch has become very powerful, but surely is not the most powerful. Other branches of the government have clearly more power and control of many issues of the society. For example the Executive Branch or the Congress. They...
Words: 507 - Pages: 3
...creating three branches of government that had to coincide with each other in order to function. Although each branch has its own powers, duties, and responsibilities that influence how the government works, the executive branch has become more and more powerful over the years. In this essay, I will discuss the framers intended relationship between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and I will argue how the executive branch wields the most power among the three branches of government. Our system of government was set up to have three branches of government: the executive branch which executes the laws, the legislative branch which creates the laws and finally the judicial branch which interprets the laws. The constitution states their powers and their checks on one another so that no branch would have more power than the other two, because of this, the framers of the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances. Under this system, each branch has the ability to stop the other two branches from gaining too much power. For example, one way the executive branch/president is able to check the legislative branch/Congress is through the presidential veto. The president can veto any bill that has been passed by Congress and stop that bill from becoming law. The judicial branch/Supreme Court has the ability to check the president and Congress through judicial review. With this power, the Supreme Court can declare a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by...
Words: 1333 - Pages: 6
...legislative branch would end up being the more capable of the other two branches of government. All things considered, the legislative branch was a leading force for states amid the Revolutionary War and amid the Articles of Confederation years. The vast majority of the Bill of Rights starts with the expression "Congress shall make no law." That being said, like the sentiments during the Revolutionary Period and amid the Articles of Confederation, the squabbling and absence of solidarity in Congress counteracted it; from playing the authority part the founders felt it ought to take. When talking about the judicial branch, its role is specified once in the Constitution and all that is expressed is that Congress is looking to create a judicial structure. The authors of the Constitution felt that most laws would be upheld and translated at the state level. It was Chief Justice John Marshall who extended the force of the Supreme Court amidst the Marbury vs. Madison case. Here, Marshall yielded the court the privilege to translate the Constitutionality of laws. In this way, the Supreme Court and the judicial branch started to gain traction as an efficient force in the government. However, this was short lived. As the United States developed, there were more requirements for one individual to have the capacity to decide rulings and judgments on issues of national security. Furthermore, due to the fact that the United States has transformed into a leading nation, the Executive Branch has turned...
Words: 1531 - Pages: 7
...United States vs Japanese Government In. 1788 the United States government outline is laid out in the Constitution, making the United States one of the first modern national constitutional republic, with the principle that all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One hundred and fifty nine later in 1947, the Japanese Constitution was formed, following closely in the form of the United States government; with the three principles of sovereignty of the people, respect for fundamental human rights, and renunciation of war. Both of these unique governments are separated into three different powerful branches; the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. However, the way that three branches are ran within these two nations differ. The purpose of this essay is to examine these branches, and identify the differences between the two governments. The executive branch of the United States, is the over seer of the United States. As commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, the president is the leader of the country. The president has the power to convene Congress, appoint ambassadors to other nations; appoint Supreme Court justices and other federal judges, and is expected to carry out and enforce laws of the United States. Meanwhile in Japan, the Executive power falls in the hands of a prime minister. The prime minister is designated by the National Diet, Japan’s legislative branch. The prime minister has the power to present bills to the Diet...
Words: 948 - Pages: 4
...United States vs Japanese Government In. 1788 the United States government outline is laid out in the Constitution, making the United States one of the first modern national constitutional republic, with the principle that all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One hundred and fifty nine later in 1947, the Japanese Constitution was formed, following closely in the form of the United States government; with the three principles of sovereignty of the people, respect for fundamental human rights, and renunciation of war. Both of these unique governments are separated into three different powerful branches; the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. However, the way that three branches are ran within these two nations differ. The purpose of this essay is to examine these branches, and identify the differences between the two governments. The executive branch of the United States, is the over seer of the United States. As commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, the president is the leader of the country. The president has the power to convene Congress, appoint ambassadors to other nations; appoint Supreme Court justices and other federal judges, and is expected to carry out and enforce laws of the United States. Meanwhile in Japan, the Executive power falls in the hands of a prime minister. The prime minister is designated by the National Diet, Japan’s legislative branch. The prime minister has the power to present bills to the Diet...
Words: 948 - Pages: 4
...Moroccan Vs American Political system The Kingdom of Morocco, is located on the Northwestern coast Africa and it’s the first country to recognize the sovereignty of the United States in 1777. Morocco, has a unitary form of government in which there are no states. As well as a constitutional democracy form of government wherein the country is ruled by king Mohammed6 and has absolute control of the country. Nonetheless, the king follows the constitution and uses the help of the prime minister. The voting age in Morocco is 18, though the citizens can't vote for their king since Morocco has a constitutional monarchy. However, the citizens are allowed to vote for the other people in the government that assist in running the country. The Kingdom of Morocco established a constitutional monarchy based on Islamic law, French and Spanish civil law systems soon after getting independence. Unlike the United States, monarchy is an advantage in Morocco since only limited people are in charge and makes it easier to make decisions because of less opinions. Furthermore, the Moroccan Political System is made up of three branches, the executive branch, The Legislative Branch and the judicial branch which are equal and benefit the country to run correctly. The executive branch carries out and proposes new laws and ideas to improve the country. Moreover, the king is the chief of the country and is the main person in the executive branch. In addition, he selects the prime...
Words: 791 - Pages: 4
...address both houses of Congress in order to explain the state of the Union in mostly economic terms. This tradition has evolved to be an annual event, where the President outlines his own agenda to the legislative bodies responsible for passing laws, and essentially gives them his own reasons for proposing bills. The third and final branch of the United States government is the judicial branch. Please note that there are separate state courts and federal courts, and that we will be discussing only federal courts. This branch is headed...
Words: 975 - Pages: 4
...The principle where the people are the decisive source of governing authority and decisions are made based on majority rules (Patterson, 2011). | Separation of Powers | The principle used for the allocation of power among the legislative, executive, and the judicial branches that outline the responsibilities of each branch. | Checks and Balances | A system of the government used to preserve a balance of power among the three branches of government so no one branch can over-power the other two. | In the United States, the federal government uses a system called checks and balances to ensure that the three branches of government are working equally and that no one branch becomes superior over the other two. The three branches that are based on the principle of separated institutions sharing power are the legislative, executive and judicial. Each branch has powers that it can use to check and balance the operations and power of the other two branches (Kelly, 2013, para. 1). What makes this system effective is that each branch must be willing to compromise to ensure the American people needs are put first and the safety and security of the nation is constantly being enforced. For instance in an attempt to limit the power that each branch could have over the other two, Congress which is divided into two houses provides a check on each other. The President can reject legislation, but he can be overruled by a two-thirds popular vote in both houses. The judiciary can lay out laws...
Words: 2052 - Pages: 9
...concept of separation of powers, which would prevent the concentration of power by creating the separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches (Federalist Papers No. 51). Therefore, no single branch would have more power or control over the other. This concept was implemented into the Constitution and has prevented one branch from gaining unencumbered power over other branches. In today’s political arena, the concept of separation of powers is highlighted by President Donald Trump’s inability to repeal the Affordable Care Act as quickly as he had promised his constituents on his campaign trail. Even though Trump was able to become president of the US, his power as part of the executive branch is still checked by the legislative and judicial branches. Despite his promises and the fact that the executive and legislative branches are dominated by his political party, Trump himself cannot repeal a law. Only the legislative branch, Congress, can repeal a law. This clear separation of powers prevents a single individual, such as Trump, from seizing unencumbered...
Words: 1449 - Pages: 6
...October 30, 2011 Marbury vs. Madison It is not difficult to explain how important John Marshall's decision in the case Marbury vs. Madison was and how our entire Supreme Court and country's politics would be different if he had not made the decision. John Marshall's decision to declare that the Supreme Court could not give out writs of mandamus and thus the Judiciary Act of 1789 (that gave out this power) was unconstitutional set the precedent for the Supreme Court to have the power to declare a law unconstitutional with the principle of judicial review. With this decision, he gave the Judiciary Branch as much power as the other two branches, and also stressed the power of the national government over the states. Without this decision, the states could be the final authority in determining if laws are unconstitutional and federalism would have been minimized. The states would not respect the decisions of the federal government. In this case, William Marbury, a Federalist and a “midnight appointment” of President John Adams, did not receive his commission from the new Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a “writ of mandamus” forcing Madison to deliver his commission. Marshall dismissed suit, but in doing so struck down part of Judiciary Act of 1789 because the Supreme Court had no authority to give Marbury his commission. This was significant because it established the precedent of “judicial review” and that the...
Words: 530 - Pages: 3
...criminal justice system today. The courts are a part of the judicial branch in the three branches of government. This means that in this branch the laws are interpreted. Like the other two branches, it works to keep the criminal justice system running as smoothly as possible. The laws are make in the legislative branch and is enforced in the executive branch. The police are a part of the executive branch. So when some one breaks a law, the job of the police, executive branch, is to arrest or ticked said offender. After an arrest or a citation or ticket is made, the next step is the court proceedings. In a case that an arrest is made, the offender is brought in front of a judge and bail is set. After that, if need be, the case is brought to prosecution. If the prosecution takes that case, then the case is put on trial. This is important because it shows just what the judicial part of government and the court part of the criminal justice system does, and why it is important. So the court systems job is to interpret the law and bring justice. The dual court system is a system in that there are state courts and federal courts. Most federal cases deal with international crimes. Such as drug smuggling and arms smuggling. But this is not just what the federal courts deal with. They also deal with issues such as federal tax laws and issues with rights. An example of federal case dealing with rights are Row vs. Wade. This was a...
Words: 812 - Pages: 4
...Specific terms of the articles (about the national govt.) • Unicameral legislature • No power to tax • No power to raise army • No executive branch (could make laws but not enforce them) • No judicial branch • Unanimous vote needed to change Articles C) General results of the Articles • Weak and incomplete national govt. • Economic chaos o States fund the war by borrowing money from federal govt. o Govt. wants the money back o Economy dries up and leads to a “trade war” with competing interest o States taxes their own citizens since they can’t borrow money o People (mostly farmers) lose their possessions and property since they can’t pay taxes o Damages the economy even more since farm family is out of work • No sufficient national defense o Enemy 1 the British o French and the Spanish also potential threats o Native Indian tribes also potential threat • States are left largely on their own (13 separate states, no unity) D) Shay’s Rebellion 4 Key debates 1. Representation of the states (large population vs. small population) o States might be equal but not for individuals o Creates a Bicameral Legislation (2 houses) 1. Senate 2. House of reps (representation based on population) which is known as “the great compromise” o Defensive compromise; better at not getting stuff done than getting stuff done. 2. Slavery (north vs. south) • In the constitution, Slavery is OK • Importation of slaves is allowed for at least 20 years (1808) • Slaves counted as...
Words: 1863 - Pages: 8
...The Power of the Supreme Court Cannot be Justified in a Democracy (45) The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy. The ambiguity of the constitution means that there is much room for interpretation. Since interpreting the constitution is the role of the supreme court, the supreme court is often seen as a quasi legislative body. This is because through its interpretations, particularly those made by loose contructionists, the supreme court acts as an additional legislature. It's decisions can have the same effect as passing legislation. For example, the Grutter vs Bollinger decision (2008) involved the courts laying down a time frame for which affirmative action can be deemed necessary. This effectively acted as a piece of legislation even though it did not pass through Congress. This can be seen as being problematic and potentially damaging for a Democracy. Justices are unelected, they therefore lack legitimacy and should...
Words: 913 - Pages: 4
