According to the text “American Government” separation of power is where the three branches of government, which are the executive, legislative, and the judicial, are kept separate in order to prevent any branch from tyrannizing the majority (Levin-Waldman, 2012). This is where checks and balances come in to play, where each branch is given a particular amount of power to keep balance between all three branches, and insuring one branch does not have more power than another. The three branches perform their own functions that are more appropriately suited for each branch, and no person can serve on more than one branch at the same time. According to the video “Checks and Balances” when congress passes a bill the president has the right to veto the bill from becoming a law, but when the president veto’s a bill it returns to congress and can be overridden if at least thirds from each house approved the bill (C-Span, 1990). It is important to not allow one person or group to have all the power in approving and disapproving bills becoming laws creating the separation of power. The constitutional framers based the new government on these ideas, because they were afraid of mob rule that would come from all citizens debating and voting rather than voting on a direct representative for the citizens.

Today I feel that separation of power and, check and balances are not working the way that they were originally intended, and a prime example was seen last year with the government shut down. When Obamacare was passed the Republican Party was not happy, and wanted to bring the issue back to the table, and to do so they refused to pass the budget bill for this year, causing the government shutdown. According to the article “Divided We Fall: The Case Against Divided Government” “A structure of separated powers, combined with divided government, will likely result in a weak government, one lacking in energy and void of ambition or direction as a result of quarrelling between opposing parties over presumably trivial matters” (John, 2011). The quarreling between opposing parties was seen in the government shutdown which penalized federal workers, and those serving in the military, which in my open as nothing more than tyrannizing the majority what the system is supposed to prevent.

References:

C-SPAN, (1990, November 27). Checks and balances [Video]. Available from http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Chec.

Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2012) American Government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Print.

John, C. (2011). Divided We Fall: The Case Against Divided Government. International Social Science Review, 86(3/4), 166-174.

The Birthright Citizenship Amendment proposal proposes and amendment to the 14th Amendment. The portion of the Amendment that the proposal wants to change is the part that makes anyone born in the United States a citizen and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That part of the 14th Amendment basically says that if an illegal immigrant enters into the United States and gives birth to a child while there, then the child is automatically a U.S citizen. It also gives the parents’ permission to stay in the U.S at least until the child turns 21. Those for the proposal argue that illegal immigrants come to the U.S. illegally and have children as an excuse to stay in the U.S. Lindsey Graham, a moderate Republican senator, suggested amending the amendment to fight the “drop and leave” tactic of visiting America to give birth (Economist, 2010). The proposal to the amendment would restrict the right if the U.S. citizenship that automatically comes with being born in the U.S. I would like to say that I do believe that our immigration system needs to be fixed and illegal immigration needs to somehow come to an end, but I do not believe that this proposal would solve this issue. If a child is born on U.S. soil they do, in my eyes, become a U.S. citizen. This is where they were born and this is the only country that they know. When a child is born and raised in the U.S. they become accustomed to the culture and society that they are raised in. To say that just because they were born here does not make them a citizen when this is all that they know is morally wrong nor does it address the illegal immigration issue. According to Marshall Fitz, creating a permanent subgroup of outcasts born in the United States who can never call it their country would weaken our nation’s social cohesion without addressing legitimate concerns posed by illegal immigration. I do not think that this proposal will be passed because of the number of people opposed to this proposal. “Another Pew study found that the public opposed by 56% to 41% (Economist, 2010). If the public does not agree with the proposal, then those in the government who do agree may want to watch out when reelection comes back around. If the government upsets the people and does not listen to their voices then they will not get the public vote to get back in office. We all know that senators and congressmen and women want to stay in their positions. References Fitz, M. (2010, August 30). Replacing the 14th amendment would not fix our immigration system. U.S. News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/repealing-the-14th-amndment-would-not-fix-our-immigration-system

(2010, August 21). Amending the amendment. Economist, 396(8696). 24. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library.