Towards a Unified Government
Written: November 19th, 2014.
Prompt: How have the principles embodied in the Constitution shaped the structure and roles of the three branches of government?
Every nation, power, principality, people, or society can hope to endure only if they are based on a set of principles that unify their respective parts into one whole. The branches of the United States government meet this criterion of hope. The principle of popular sovereignty is exemplified in the legislative branch, judicial review in the judicial branch, and checks and balances in the executive branch.
Turn first to the law makers (the legislative branch) where popular sovereignty, or rule by the people, is seen most clearly. For example, the people elect members to Congress, who make the laws. Indirectly, then, the people write the laws of the land. Additionally, the number of representatives per state in Congress is proportional to the total population. The more people, the more representatives, and thus, the more power. In other words, people equal power. Third, Congressmen are up for election every two or six years (House of Representatives and Senate, respectively). This guarantees Congressmen will bow to the will of the people, lest they not be reelected.
But the legislative branch is not the only branch with principles. Judicial review, or the act of declaring a law unconstitutional, shines forth in the judges of America (the judicial branch). For instance, the Defense of Marriage Act (the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriage) was struck down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, in Ladue v. Galileo, the Supreme Court ruled against a law prohibiting yard signs. Finally, in Texas v. Johnson, the Court struck down a law that made it illegal to burn a U.S. flag. In all these instances, the laws in question were overturned because they were deemed contrary to the Constitution, the essence of judicial review.
Coming full circle, checks and balances, or power in each branch of government over every other branch, may be seen in the executive branch, the President and his fellow law enforcers. First, the President cannot declare war; that is the power of Congress. But once war has been declared, the President directs it. Thus, "war powers" are balanced. Second, the Supreme Court can declare unconstitutional or overrule an executive order of the President. However, the President can veto a law passed by Congress, but Congress can "counter-veto" the veto with a two-third majority in both Houses. Therefore, "law-making" powers are balanced. In short, the executive branch provides a fine illustration of the heart of checks and balances.
To draw together the threads of the discussion, checks and balances finds its home in the executive branch, judicial review in the judicial branch, and popular sovereignty in the legislative branch. The question that now must be asked is, are these principles valid for today? It is time that we as a people look to our foundational principles and seriously question their modern-day worth. But it would seem the deep, widespread fear of change will always prevent this reflection from happening. So let us hope the Founders got it right.
Prompt: How have the principles embodied in the Constitution shaped the structure and roles of the three branches of government?
Every nation, power, principality, people, or society can hope to endure only if they are based on a set of principles that unify their respective parts into one whole. The branches of the United States government meet this criterion of hope. The principle of popular sovereignty is exemplified in the legislative branch, judicial review in the judicial branch, and checks and balances in the executive branch.
Turn first to the law makers (the legislative branch) where popular sovereignty, or rule by the people, is seen most clearly. For example, the people elect members to Congress, who make the laws. Indirectly, then, the people write the laws of the land. Additionally, the number of representatives per state in Congress is proportional to the total population. The more people, the more representatives, and thus, the more power. In other words, people equal power. Third, Congressmen are up for election every two or six years (House of Representatives and Senate, respectively). This guarantees Congressmen will bow to the will of the people, lest they not be reelected.
But the legislative branch is not the only branch with principles. Judicial review, or the act of declaring a law unconstitutional, shines forth in the judges of America (the judicial branch). For instance, the Defense of Marriage Act (the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriage) was struck down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, in Ladue v. Galileo, the Supreme Court ruled against a law prohibiting yard signs. Finally, in Texas v. Johnson, the Court struck down a law that made it illegal to burn a U.S. flag. In all these instances, the laws in question were overturned because they were deemed contrary to the Constitution, the essence of judicial review.
Coming full circle, checks and balances, or power in each branch of government over every other branch, may be seen in the executive branch, the President and his fellow law enforcers. First, the President cannot declare war; that is the power of Congress. But once war has been declared, the President directs it. Thus, "war powers" are balanced. Second, the Supreme Court can declare unconstitutional or overrule an executive order of the President. However, the President can veto a law passed by Congress, but Congress can "counter-veto" the veto with a two-third majority in both Houses. Therefore, "law-making" powers are balanced. In short, the executive branch provides a fine illustration of the heart of checks and balances.
To draw together the threads of the discussion, checks and balances finds its home in the executive branch, judicial review in the judicial branch, and popular sovereignty in the legislative branch. The question that now must be asked is, are these principles valid for today? It is time that we as a people look to our foundational principles and seriously question their modern-day worth. But it would seem the deep, widespread fear of change will always prevent this reflection from happening. So let us hope the Founders got it right.
Comments
Post a Comment