Abstract This paper discusses Morgenthau's feelings about how politicians and/or leaders must be viewed based on their decisions; Waltz's ideas on the ever changing outlook of the balance of power and Kissinger's ideas that history must be viewed in order to learn about countries and their ability to gain power.
From the Paper "David Hume said "It is a question, whether the idea of the balance of power be owing entirely to modern policy, or whether the phrase only has been invented in the later ages?" (Thompson & Morgenthau 1952, 105). Yet, as history has evolved it is evident that the theory of "balance of power" began to be constructed in ancient societies when there was a concern that one entity would become greater, or more prominent, than another. In early Greece, researchers contend, there is the first evidence of a concern for nations to achieve a balance of power within the world. Yet, this concern gained greater significance during the reign of Louis XIV in France, and developed further in Europe during WWI (Thompson & Morgenthau 1952, 105). "
Abstract This paper traces the development of the three orders of power in American history. It explains that the history goes back to the founding of the nation when the idea of a balance of powers was instituted, with three theoretically co-equal branched of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial, each with its own area of power. The paper focuses on the executive order and how this can potentially be abused by presidents. The writer argues that the executive order has become a means by which Presidents try to create law when they cannot get Congress to act as they wish. The use of the executive order endangers the balance of powers so important in our constitutional system.
From the Paper "Critics point out that there has been a growth in presidential rule through executive orders and national emergencies. The Constitution defines presidential powers very generally, and so it does not define or directly limit the power of a president to rule by executive order: "The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers" (Liberty Study Committee). "
Abstract Some political observers argue that the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary resides with the judiciary in Canada - a troubling assertion for those who feel unelected officials should not hold that kind of sway over the political process. In the view of this writer, such an argument is undoubtedly correct. With that uppermost in mind, this article looks at why it may be said that Canadian judges wield sweeping powers. From there, the paper turns to examine the arguments raised by at least one prominent Canadian academic who feels strongly that judges should use the considerable powers of their position to promote the creation of a Canada more in keeping with the notions of equality and inclusiveness that Canada allegedly stands for. The writer concludes by looking at how justices now see themselves in Canada, how the Charter entrenchment of certain rights has expanded their legislative role and what implications their prominent place in the democratic process offers for interest groups and citizens' groups. The writer maintains that the proper balance of power in a democracy should be one in which judges interpret the law rather than make it via prescriptive measures, but laments whether this will ever happen in Canada.
From the Paper "Other academics, while appearing to share Dr. Greene's view that justices should play a key role in the shaping and formulation of Canadian law, nonetheless bristle at any suggestion that Canada's judiciary has been assertive in resisting the non-democratic or authoritarian impulses of Parliament - at least in some notable cases that have sweeping implications for all Canadians. For instance, L.E. Weinrib writes in 1994 that Canada's Supreme Court justices caved in to the legislature (and possibly to public pressure, as well) when they decided to reject Sue Rodriguez's request that she be allowed to die via assisted suicide. Of especial importance - at least to Ms. Weinrib - the majority of the Supreme Court read Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as enshrining the sanctity of human life and not as an expression of an individual's right to be an autonomous decision-maker in a free society."
This paper discusses the concept, history and application of ?Checks and Balances?, the system that gives constitutional controls of the separate branches of government in a way that one branch will not have more power over the others.
Abstract This paper states that, although the Federal Constitution of the United States with its ?Checks and Balances? makes it the best-known and most democratic system in the world today, most governments, even dictatorial ones, have a similar mechanism to balance the exercise of power among its branches. The author feels that the U.S. Constitution was and will be a reaction piece to events that happen to the people. This paper concludes that power must be controlled and accounted for: It is not only a right and a privilege but also, more so, a responsibility.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Checks and Balances in the Legislative Branch
The System and the People's Rights
The System and the Judiciary
A Brilliant System in Present Times
From the Paper "The system has been tested by actual situations. After the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson vetoed 20 bills (Anonymous), after which Congress overrode more than 20 bills vetoed by the President. In 1918, Congress turned down the Treaty of Versailles, which then President Woodrow Wilson worked hard for. The Treaty was to end World War I. In 1935 to 1936, Supreme Court declared that the NIRA and the AAA, New Deal programs passed by the Roosevelt Administration, were unconstitutional. Likewise, former President Ronald Regan appointed Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but his appointment or nomination was rejected by Congress."
Abstract This paper sheds light on the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in the US system of government that regulates the powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The paper also discusses the concerns that the failure by the Supreme Court or Congress to interfere with the executive's actions in the current Iraq war may be resulting in the abrogation of constitutional protections. Furthermore, the paper shows how the system of checks and balances was established to safeguard against encroachment by one branch onto another and to ensure that no member of the executive or legislative branch is placed beyond the scope of the law during the course of his or her time in office.
From the Paper "Congress fulfills the legislative role, and is the only body that can make federal laws. Moreover, Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to any other governmental body. However, Congress can delegate some of its lesser powers to other governmental branches. In addition, Congress retains some control over the executive and judicial branches through the power of impeachment. The President fulfills the executive role, and is in charge of executive officers who ensure that the nation's laws are enforced. However, presidential power only extends to executive agencies, not quasi-judicial or legislative agencies. The executive branch exercises some control over the judiciary because it nominates judicial appointees. In addition, the executive branch exercises some control over the legislative branch because of the power of the Presidential veto. The judicial power is given to the Supreme Court and the lower courts. The judicial power is only exercised by constitutional courts; though Congress can establish legislative courts to determine issues of public rights, those courts cannot exercise judicial power."
Abstract This essay examines and analyses the following statement by Noreena Hertz: "Over the last two decade the balance of power between politics and commerce has shifted. The political state has become the corporate state." This essay outlines the main arguments for and against this claim particularly those used by Hertz in her book "The Silent Takeover". Hertz argues that in today's world, multinational corporations have 'taken-over' the running of the state away from governments. With the formation of global economy multinational corporations have became the dominant economic powers.
Abstract This paper outlines the historical factors and events during the 14th and 15th centuries that caused the balance of power to shift away from Portugal and Spain and toward the Netherlands, France, and England.
From the Paper "In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the dominant explorers of the time hailed from Portugal and Spain, and these countries were made quite wealthy as a result. Their position, however, as significant empires would not last forever, and soon, the countries of Northern Europe ? in particular, the Netherlands, France, and England ? set out to take their share of the riches, too. These countries improved on the Spanish and Portuguese methods of exploration, ship building, and trade. The English had faster, more agile ships that were more maneuverable then those of Portugal and Spain."
Abstract This paper reviews the doctrines of 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' and explains how Article II and other parts of the Constitution provide broad powers to the executive. It also discusses the ways in which U.S. Presidents have used these powers and exploited their position to strengthen the executive branch and deny other branches of the government.
Outline:
Jeffersonian Perspective on the Concentration of Powers How & Where are "Separation of Powers" & "Checks and Balances" Incorporated in the Constitution?
Ways in Which Article II Gives the President Wide Ranging Powers Executive Power as Check and Balance The Power Grab by the Executive
Conclusion
From the Paper "Among the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the most suspicious of concentration of powers and took the concept of 'separation of powers' most seriously. Even though, powers of the legislative branch (the Congress) were of most concern at the time of the framing of the Constitution, Jefferson had enough wisdom and vision to foresee that the executive had the most room for "doing mischief" in the future. Hence, he was unhappy about the lack of term limits for the president in the original US Constitution; he feared that in time, the president would become "an officer for life," more like an elected monarch rather than someone the public had temporarily placed their trust in to do good for them."
Abstract This paper explains that the constitutional system of checks and balances has served the country well over the years, notwithstanding its original intent to avoid majoritarian power. The author points out that the amount of power wielded by one branch of the federal government compared to the others has tended to swing from one extreme to another, expanding in scope and power until brought under control by the checks and balances of the others. The paper relates that, since 9/11, the president has emerged as the temporary heavyweight champion among the three branches of government today; however, when the real and perceived threats to the nation's interests have been resolved, it would seem certain that the system of checks and balances would provide the impetus needed to once again diminish the powers of an "imperial presidency".
From the Paper "According to "Black's Law Dictionary" (1990), checks and balances are an "arrangement of government powers whereby powers of one governmental branch check or balance those of other branches." This separation of powers, of course, has been a fundamental feature of the American federal government from the outset, but the intent, purpose and net effect of this approach has not been exactly what the Founders may have envisioned. When the nation's Founders gathered to forge a constitution, Goldwin and Schambra (1980) suggest that the checks and balances provisions that were adopted were not intended to keep the forces of government under control but were rather intended to keep the popular majority from exercising any substantive degree of influence over its operation."
Tags: majoritarian, checks, balances, 9/11, control
Abstract The Constitution of a democratic government provides for the control of powers through a system of Checks and Balances. The paper explains that this system refers to constitutional controls of the separate branches of government, i.e., executive, legislative and judicial, over one another to insure that not one will have more power over the two others. The paper shows that it is commonly believed that the policy provided by the checks and balances of the Federal Constitution of the United States makes it the best-known and most democratic system in the world today.
Paper Outline:
Checks and Balances in the Legislative Branch
The System and the People's Rights
The System and the Judiciary
A Brilliant System in Present Times
From the Paper "The system has been tested by actual situations. After the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson vetoed 20 bills (Anonymous), after which Congress overrode more than 20 bills vetoed by the President. In 1918, Congress turned down the Treaty of Versailles, which then President Woodrow Wilson worked hard for. The Treaty was to end World War I. In 1935 to 1936, Supreme Court declared that the NIRA and the AAA, New Deal programs passed by the Roosevelt Administration, were unconstitutional. Likewise, former President Ronald Regan appointed Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but his appointment or nomination was rejected by Congress."
Abstract This paper explores the three branches of government that create a system of checks and balances and separation of power. It outlines how laws are passed and how they are defeated. It also shows how this system of government came to be.
From the paper:
"The separation of the functions of the three branches of government, viz. the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, is one of the basic principles of American democracy and government. The purpose of having three separate independent branches is ostensibly to keep checks and balances between them so that they do not exceed their powers and keep a watch over one another's functioning."
Abstract The paper explains that the separation of powers doctrine of the US Constitution was intended to reduce the likelihood of tyrannical corruption of governmental power. The paper then looks at the "Morrison v. Olson" case that arose during the Reagan administration regarding whether the establishment of an independent counsel violated the fundamental principle of checks and balances.
Outline:
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
From the Paper "Separation of Powers is a doctrine enumerated by the United States Constitution that is a fundamental part of the structure of the U.S. government. However, in principle, it is a concept that long predated the American Revolution, or for that matter, the British Royal Crown whose oligarch icy inspired the formation of a democratic republic in the
New World. In fact, separation of governmental powers can be traced to ancient Rome (Friedman, 2005)."
This paper discusses judicial review, the court's power to review and possibly nullify laws, and governmental acts that violate the Constitution and higher norms and laws.
Abstract This paper explains that judicial review insures neither laws nor executive orders violate either existing case law or some element of the constitution itself. The author points out that, without the power of judicial review, there is effectively no balance of power among the three branches of government. The paper stresses that judicial review allows the courts, and specifically the Supreme Court, the ability to safeguard the rights of individual Americans.
From the Paper "We have been discussing the concept of judicial review as it if arose from the Constitution, and indeed the specific authority for and practice of judicial review as we experience it in the United States today does derive from the Constitution. However, for these Constitutional provisions to have arisen the idea of judicial review must have existed before the Constitution was itself written and ratified, and this is in fact the case, although the concept was not made explicitly a part of American polity until 1803 when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. While the idea is integral to the Constitutional separation of powers, it is important to note that the power of judicial review is not in fact anywhere explicitly described in the Constitution, although the practice of judicial review had been seen even before the ratification of the Constitution during the period of Confederacy that intervened between the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution when federal courts used the power of judicial review to strike laws that had been permitted to stand by state courts."
Abstract Fewer and fewer people are found to believe in the American form of democratic structure, especially as it applies to accountability, communication, and a true 'balance of power'. This paper argues that, since this is a presidential election year, the issue of power must once again be addressed. It shows that the people must initiate changes that will bring democracy back to the "will of the people" rather than allow it to remain within the realm of manipulation in the established system.
From the Paper "The laws that are established are meant to provide the parameters for shared beliefs while creating the institutions of political society such as governments and political systems. The American Constitution was created as a means to provide protection for the people against the establishment of power within those political structures. The distribution of power is said to be at the 'will of the people' through representative government. The use of the judiciary to determine the 2000 election results should cause concern for any American who believes their rights are protected under the existing system. The national legislature's role in modern politics is, and should be, increasingly debated."
Tags: George, W., Bush, House, of, Representatives, Constitution
Abstract This paper argues that the allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which were never discovered, was a deliberate deception by the Bush administration to justify their aggression in terms of containing terrorism by maintaining the international balance of power. The paper further asserts that Bush ignored the truth that he heard from his advisers and deliberately misled the American people to make an excuse to go to war with Iraq. The paper contends that Bush wanted to secure America's position of dominance, power and access to oil resources in the Middle East and tricked the American people into thinking that going to war with Iraq was a way of waging war on terrorism.
From the Paper "The primary thrust of Bush's argument for the invasion of Iraq was that Iraq was a serious threat to the rest of the world because it was building WMD. This is an interesting allegation, given that the only country that really has a large supply of WMD is the USA. However, it must be borne in mind that those countries who seek to justify owning WMD - such as the USA - seek to do so in terms of deterrence theory. The idea is that if rational countries such as the USA and Russia possess nuclear weapons, their mutual knowledge that the other country has WMD will deter either country from ever deploying the WMD."
Tags: lies, balance of power, terrorism, aluminum tubes, imbalance
