Checks and Balances in US Politics

1. On the legislative

By the Executive

They can recommend legislation (e.g. the executive will do this at the state of the union address. Obama used his 2015 address to focus on the passing of his new budget)

They can veto legislation (e.g. Bush vetoed stem cell research)

Call Congress into special session

By the Judiciary

Judicial review - power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional (e.g. declared the communications decency act 1996 unconstitutional)

2. On the Executive

By the Legislature

Amend/delay/reject the president's legislation (e.g. investigated CIA totrute programme)

Override the President's veto - 2/3 majority in each house needed (e.g. in Bush's terms Congress overrode 4 of 11 regular vetoes)

Control of the budget all the money President wants to spend on his policies must be voted for by Congress (e.g. Congress rejected spending on Trump's wall)

Senates power to confirm appointments made by the President

Ratifies treaties negotiated by the President

Impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from office of any member of the executive branch including the President (e.g. Clinton and Nixon)

By the Judiciary

Judicial review - power to declare actions of any member of the executive branch unconstitutional (e.g. declared Trumps executive order on the ban of people from Muslim majority Countries unconstitutional)

3. On the Judiciary

By the Legislature

Senates power to confirm appointments made by the President (e.g. blocked the appointment of Merrick Garland 2016)

Initiate Constitutional amendments and they can overturn a decision of the supreme court (e.g. unsuccessfully tried to reverse decisions on issues like flag burning)

Impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from office of any member of the judiciary

By the executive

Appointment of judges - the President nominates all federal judges to the trial court, appeal court and supreme court (e.g. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch)

Pardons (e.g. Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning)

Are Checks and balances effective?

Yes, they are effective

Federalism - the resulting federal system allowed a strong nation state and protects states rights

It's provided stability but has adapted to social change through the process of amendment and judicial review

Means no one part of the government can become too powerful

A divided government leads to a more effective government - bills are scrutinised more closely, treaties are checked more carefully and nominees questioned more rigorously (e.g. Gorsuch was questioned about the dark money in his campaign by Democrats)

No, they are not effective

The Supreme Court has too much power - judicial review so they can change what Constitution means is quite a significant power

No appeals can be made against supreme court decisions - only an amendment or future supreme court case can overide a previous supreme court case

Gridlock - Senate can stall judicial nominations for partisan reasons (e.g. Obama nominating Garland in 2016 but being blocked by Senate as he was a Democrat and they wanted a Republican). Gridlock can lead to a 'do-nothing Congress' (hardly any important policies put into law due to partisanship e.g. Obama's budget led to government shutdown because of partisanship)

Divided government means they can be less effective (e.g. impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton)

Specific checks and balances have proved problematic in modern times (e.g. Congress power to declare war, such as against Iraq)

Too much power is given to those who want to block change (e.g. Obama only narrowly got Obamacare through Congress)

Neo-Conservatives argue that 'Congress is too powerful'; the President should have more power (Gerald Ford said "our forefathers knew you couldn't have 535 Commander-in Chiefs")

Congress is weak - many of their checks don’t work (e.g. Obama didn't inform Congress of his actions in Libya within the acts stipulation of 60 days)

Does the Constitution protect Civil Rights?

Yes, it protects civil rights

Bill of Rights entrenches rights and holds them all in one codified document. To change these rights requires 2 super majorities and ¾ of all states so rights cannot easily be changed

Where civil rights liberties have been breached or violated by any of the branches of the federal government (Patriot Act) the constitution is used to defend and preserve civil rightd as it promises liberty for all

The Supreme Court has the power to declare acts of the executive and legislative unconstitutional if they threaten civil rights (e.g. legislation banning gay marriage)

William Brennan: "the Founding Fathers designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our government from infringing rights"

Not, it does not protect civil rights

Civil liberties have been exposed and violated (e.g. unreasonable search legislation by the federal govt and after 9/11 conservatives 'justifiably' constrained civil liberties)

Slavery was allowed even after the Constitution was ratified i.e. equal protection didn’t automatically refer to blacks

In South Carolina, the toilet law (i.e. a law that you must go to the toilet that is in accordance with gender on birth certificate) demonstrates states have too much power

Rights are not applied consistently (e.g. marijuana is legal in Florida but illegal in many other states)

Extra

Next check out our notes on:

dec