Difference Between Checks And Balances

The United States was founded on a core belief that one person should not be granted all the power. More specifically, like Great Britain in the late 1700’s. Through the tyranny the founding fathers experienced under the UK rule, they developed a system that divides the power across multiple levels of government. The U.S. Constitution determines all the power granted and not to each branch. There are seven main components that outline the spread of responsibilities. They are grants of power, separated institutions and the divide of power, federalism, denial of power, the Bill of Rights, the judicial review government actions as constitutional, and the power of elections. Granting power was wildly debated by the founding fathers. Trying to …show more content…
Most common phrase is “checks and balances”. When and if Congress attempts to break the laws within the Constitution, these bills have to pass both the Judiciary Branch and Executive Branch. This means that no final decisions can be made without working with the other institutions. Easiest way to understand this idea, the powers of each other overlap meaning they cannot act individually. Hence the Constitution restraining the power of one person over another within the government. This results in the judicial review. There are a few different ways this happens. In terms of checks and balances, a law trying to be passed through Congress is required to be presented to the Supreme Court where they make the decision if the bill is considered unconstitutional. However, these powers are not limited to just bills, court cases between client and government can also be presented before the court where such rulings for or against the constitution can be made. A historical example would include Brown v. Board of Education where the supreme court determined it was unconstitutional to not integrate schools. The board of education is a government run program in which the Supreme court “checked” it. Likewise, Congress internally has this. Bills need to be passed by both the Senate and House of Representatives which means they can prohibit unfair power being granted to one or the …show more content…
Created hundreds of years ago these ten amendments are right for all citizens living in the United States. Day after day politicians argue that they are relevant in the current political scheme. An example would be the second amendment to bare arms. With increasing pressure for gun control, a growing number of communities are asking for reform. Consequently, there is a fine line of breaking that second amendment. All of the amendments are granted without argument and protected. The bill of rights then safeguards citizens from oppression of anybody. Thomas Jefferson said “they are human rights” implying they belong in the doctrine that governs. Ultimately, it prohibited national and state governments from gaining to much power. Including taking away freedom of religion and speech. The last restraint on power would be that every two years a new Congress gets elected and every four (possibly) a new President gets elected. It gives the power to the people to recognize corruption, and vote it out of the government. Likewise, the people vote on laws at the state and national level that, if passed, would become a responsibilities of the people. It can stronghold the livelihood of citizens all across the United States. Each state, city, community have specific needs to function. Elections allows the people to gain the needs through bills and officials who will look out for their