CHECKS AND BALANCES
Definitions:
Text book definition:
The three branches of government, (legislative, judicial, executive), are not entirely separated nor completely independent of one another. Rather, they are tied together by a complex system of checks and balances. This means that each branch is subject to a number of constitutional checks by the other branches.
Text book definition:
The three branches of government, (legislative, judicial, executive), are not entirely separated nor completely independent of one another. Rather, they are tied together by a complex system of checks and balances. This means that each branch is subject to a number of constitutional checks by the other branches.
- The congress has the power to make law
- The president may veto any act of Congress
- Congress can override a presidential veto by a two thirds vote in each house
- Congress can refuse to provide funds requested by the President
- or the Senate may refuse to approve a treaty or an appointment made by the President
- The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but Congress provides the military force; and so on
Applications:
Congress and President Correct the Supreme Court
In 2009 President Obama signed a law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,which overturned A Supreme Court ruling against Ms.Ledbetter in Ledbetter VS. Goodyear Tire & Rubber company. Ms.Ledbetter was given a tip that she was being payed less by a colleague and sued the company for discrimination. In the previous law employees are allowed only 180 days to file a complaint if they believe they are being discriminated against for pay. This is why the Supreme Court voted against her. However, with the system of checks and balances Obama was able to overturn the ruling and put in place a new law. This law made it much harder for workers who have been victims of unlawful pay discrimination to obtain compensation for that discrimination.
Summary: Obama overturned the ruling of the court and signed in a new law, The Fair Pay Act, that makes the correct interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex or race.
Information from: http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/485
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
On January 4th, 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that recess appointments made by President Obama were unconstitutional. Senator Chuck Grassley was leading the Republicans in pressing the administration to release the legal opinion advising on the constitutionally on the President's executive overreach in a series of speeches given on the Senate floor.
Senator Grassley’s statement on the court ruling:
“This decision is good news for checks and balances, an essential factor in our system of government that safeguards ‘we the people’ against unchecked government power. The decision reaffirms that the Constitution gives power to the Senate in the appointment process in order to protect individual liberty. The court’s conclusion is supported by the language, structure and history of the Constitution. The court goes so far as to condemn the President for defining the scope of his own powers in the appointment process and says it would ‘demolish the checks and balances’ of the Constitution. And, the court specifically rejects the arguments that the Office of Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice made in support of the President’s actions. I spoke against these arguments at the time they were made. The Framers of the Constitution feared the history of tyranny that arose from executive power. The Constitution provides for presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of appointees for this reason. The limited exception of recess appointments is a victory for freedom and a lesson to the President to respect legal constraints on his expansive claims of executive power.”
Summary: The court didn't allow Obama to take anymore recesses during the court session and ruled it unconstitutionally.
Information from: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=44282
Checks and Balances on drone strikes
Recently, the checks and balances system has been very important regarding the use of drones and the desire to declare war. Without checks and balances Obama could have started more than just a drone war. Citizens highly disagreed with us going to war and therefore Obama's ruling was put to a halt. This debate has taken place since the September 2011 killing of a senior Al-Qaeda operative who was an American citizen. Some senators are saying that it might be necessary for a special court to monitor the secret drone war. Through checks and balances the court was able to prevent an event that the President might have gone through with.
" Some administration critics have questioned the legality of drone strikes against US citizens, while other fear that raining death from the skies may do more harm than good in increasing anti-US sentiment. "
Summary: Checks and balances have prevented such things as a drone war happening when the rest of the country didn't agree.
Information from: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/14/obama-there-must-be-checks-and-balances-on-drone-strikes/
Congress and President Correct the Supreme Court
In 2009 President Obama signed a law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,which overturned A Supreme Court ruling against Ms.Ledbetter in Ledbetter VS. Goodyear Tire & Rubber company. Ms.Ledbetter was given a tip that she was being payed less by a colleague and sued the company for discrimination. In the previous law employees are allowed only 180 days to file a complaint if they believe they are being discriminated against for pay. This is why the Supreme Court voted against her. However, with the system of checks and balances Obama was able to overturn the ruling and put in place a new law. This law made it much harder for workers who have been victims of unlawful pay discrimination to obtain compensation for that discrimination.
Summary: Obama overturned the ruling of the court and signed in a new law, The Fair Pay Act, that makes the correct interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex or race.
Information from: http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/485
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
On January 4th, 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that recess appointments made by President Obama were unconstitutional. Senator Chuck Grassley was leading the Republicans in pressing the administration to release the legal opinion advising on the constitutionally on the President's executive overreach in a series of speeches given on the Senate floor.
Senator Grassley’s statement on the court ruling:
“This decision is good news for checks and balances, an essential factor in our system of government that safeguards ‘we the people’ against unchecked government power. The decision reaffirms that the Constitution gives power to the Senate in the appointment process in order to protect individual liberty. The court’s conclusion is supported by the language, structure and history of the Constitution. The court goes so far as to condemn the President for defining the scope of his own powers in the appointment process and says it would ‘demolish the checks and balances’ of the Constitution. And, the court specifically rejects the arguments that the Office of Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice made in support of the President’s actions. I spoke against these arguments at the time they were made. The Framers of the Constitution feared the history of tyranny that arose from executive power. The Constitution provides for presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of appointees for this reason. The limited exception of recess appointments is a victory for freedom and a lesson to the President to respect legal constraints on his expansive claims of executive power.”
Summary: The court didn't allow Obama to take anymore recesses during the court session and ruled it unconstitutionally.
Information from: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=44282
Checks and Balances on drone strikes
Recently, the checks and balances system has been very important regarding the use of drones and the desire to declare war. Without checks and balances Obama could have started more than just a drone war. Citizens highly disagreed with us going to war and therefore Obama's ruling was put to a halt. This debate has taken place since the September 2011 killing of a senior Al-Qaeda operative who was an American citizen. Some senators are saying that it might be necessary for a special court to monitor the secret drone war. Through checks and balances the court was able to prevent an event that the President might have gone through with.
" Some administration critics have questioned the legality of drone strikes against US citizens, while other fear that raining death from the skies may do more harm than good in increasing anti-US sentiment. "
Summary: Checks and balances have prevented such things as a drone war happening when the rest of the country didn't agree.
Information from: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/14/obama-there-must-be-checks-and-balances-on-drone-strikes/
The basics of Checks and Balances
First, the legislative branch can pass a law. The way the executive branch checks that is by either agreeing with it or vetoing it. Second, the judicial branch apprehends the laws. The executive branch checks that by choosing all the justices in the court. Third, the executive branch can veto a bill. The legislative branch checks that by looking at it again and possibly cancelling the veto. |
|