When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they created three branches of government. They also relied on the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.
Separation of powers refers to the idea that each branch of government has a different job to do. The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch carries out the laws. The judicial branch interprets the laws. Each branch is also able to control the other branches. The President can veto a law. Congress can override the veto. The Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional or illegal.
Because of these principles, the President doesn’t have too much power. Neither do the other branches. There are a few examples to support this point of view. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March to fill an open seat on the Supreme Court. However, the Senate must approve this nomination. There are many senators who believe this appointment should wait until after the election is decided. There has been no action taken regarding the confirmation of Justice Garland.
President Obama issued several executive orders in 2014 telling the Office of Homeland Security and other government agencies to not deport about four million adult illegal immigrants who have children living in the United States and also hold a job and have a high school diploma. The President didn’t need to get the approval of Congress to issues these executive orders. Thus, the President, through executive orders, may be able to circumvent the wishes of Congress. In fact, several states and the House of Representatives are suing the President over these executive orders.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that no branch of government has too much power because of the effectiveness of the system of checks and balances and the concept of separation of powers.
No comments:
Post a Comment