Separation of Power and Checks and Balances

Separation of Power and Checks and Balances

The separation of power, as well as the existence of checks and balances, was indeed valid. Even though not all may agree but the form of government that was proposed by Madison in conjunction with other federalists has much value than the counter-offer that was being given by those who were pro the centralized government. Leadership is about roles, responsibilities, and accountability. To whoever a responsibility has been bestowed, several things would expect of them. Even though the government is working as a unit in that all arms of government are supposed to work together, there is a need to ensure that each unit of government is held accountable, and this can only be done when there is the separation of powers as well as checks and balances.

The government is organized in the form of three arms. There is the judiciary, the Congress as well as the Executive. Congress is the one that is mandated in the making of the laws. There are cases where the laws that are made are indeed illegal in that they violate the constitution of the United States. Congress may also form laws that contravene the social fabric of American society (Deeks). There are laws and guidelines on how such laws are supposed to be made in a manner that will ensure that the quality of the lives of people is at the center of the laws that are made. It is clear that several laws that have been made have certainly affected the lives of people; hence there is a need to review it and ensure that they are in line with the lives of people as well as the values that the country stands for.

There is a need for checks and balances in ensuring that Congress makes laws that are in line with the policies that promote the lives of people. There has been the need to ensure that the executive arm of government is as well as the judiciary can work together without compromising each other or undermining each other. There is a need to limit the powers of each branch of government. If the executive was the ones to make laws, then the laws that would have been made would have been limited to the executive’s campaign manifesto, which may be limited (Kowalski). It is clear that over the years, there has been a need to ensure the nation’s interest is put ahead of any other interest. This has mainly been achieved through the separation of powers. Once there is proof that the model used will result in the maximum benefit for the whole country, then such laws are made. This is great based on the fact that it has ensured there is cohesion in the manner in which the arms of government work. Congress has to make laws that are in line with the American fabric for the House is aware that these laws that are made are going to be reviewed if they have illegality in them. They also have to ensure that the laws are in line with the constitution for any breach of the constitution will certainly be ruled against by the judiciary.

It has been the same case with the executive branch of government. This branch of government is under the leadership of the excellency of the president. It is clear that if the president or the executive had the absolute powers to do anything, then there is a huge possibility that they would have engaged in so much illegality, for they would have no one to hold them accountable. On the contrary, the introduction of accountability ensured there is a frame in which the president operates in (Hooker). It has ensured that the president’s executive orders are subject to review in court if they happen to contradict what the nation has always stood for. The separation of powers has been key in ensuring that at no single point does one arm of government claim to be superior to others.

For the case of the recent past, there has been an effective use of separation of powers as well as checks and balances in ensuring that the Presidents operate within the legal framework that has been availed to them. The failure to effectively conform to the dictates of the constitution has resulted in several impeachment motions against three different presidents, the most recent one being the one for President Trump. If Presidents had the powers to do all that they wished for, then certainly there would have been cases of people using the office to enrich themselves or for political expediency.

If the government was to be centralized under the leadership of a president who had sweeping powers over all the other branches of government, then there would have been cases of dictatorship and people clinging on to power. The checks and balances, as well as the separation of powers, have been key in ensuring that no branch of government acts superior to the others, for they need each other for them to work for the people effectively. A huge number of people have been able to benefit from the separation of powers. The branches of government have been working for the people as opposed to a case where they work for the officeholders. For the judiciary, the Chief Justice is aware that they will be held responsible for every decision they make. Even though they enjoy the immunity of tenure, after their terms of office are done, they will be held responsible for the decisions they made. For the case of the executive branch of government, it is clear that if there is evidence that the president has broken the law, then there is room for them to be indicted and be impeached by Congress and tried by the Senate. For the parliament, it is clear that a member of Congress can be recalled from the House.

Work Cited:

Deeks, Ashley. “Checks and Balances from Abroad.” U. Chi. L. Rev. 83 (2016): 65.

Kowalski, Kathiann M. Checks and balances: a look at the powers of government. Lerner Publications, 2017.

Hooker, Jesse. “Presidential power and its expanding influence: Suggestions on how to strengthen checks and balances.” (2019).