Is there really a separation of powers in government?

L

little_miss_sunshine_1234

New member
I understand how someone of a libertarian bent can dislike the courts. They have allowed the US to not be what you think the constitution says.

Nevertheless, the majority of change in this country is at the hanRAB of elected officials and with the wishes of the populace. People don't want to live in your Randian distopia, and it is not the courts fault for not forcing them to.

Sorry bros.
 
What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Are the Courts more powerful than the other Branches or not? Are you some kind of moron?
 
I am talking about the separation of powers/checks and balances between the Legislative/Executive/Judiciary branches of government, not "well the Dimms and Repubs are exactly the same, there's no separation LOL".

Surely the Constitution does present a separation of more-or-less clearly defined branches with each branch wielding particular powers not held by the other two. But is it truly occurring in reality? Especially with this administration, I am very concerned that the Executive branch is becoming too powerful.
 
Not really. Not anymore.

Constitutionally, the Congress is the most powerful, followed by the Executive, and then the Supreme Court. Today, the Court is most powerful, followed by the Executive (which is MUCH more powerful than originally intended), followed by a weak Congress (in comparison to the other branches).

The main bulwark of liberty and a true 'separation of powers' was intended to be the people - through trial by juries and with the power and sovereignty of the States. Both of these provisions have, by and large, been diminished to the point of irrelevance.
 
I don't think the powers have been blurred or that one is anymore powerful than the others, but there has clearly been a significant strengthening of those powers over the years.
 
Because the courts are largely reactionary and responsive. Certainly they have made some changes, and certainly they have allowed some changes, but they still don't change the country as much as the executive.

Bush took us into two wars, passed the Patriot Act, NCLB, and changed federal regulation across the government. Massive changes. Under Gore, the country would have changed in a very different way. During the same 8 year period, what did the Supreme Court do that equals those changes? What about during the Obama Presidency?

I think your irrational attribution of power to the SC comes from their tendency to make decisions which disagree with your version of what US Federalism should look like. And they might have legitimately been the most powerful for a period of time in certain areas....US Federalism and civil liberties being the biggest two in recent memory. But I think those days are largely over and the imperial Presidency has taken over ala Greenwald, making the executive the most powerful branch, and getting stronger. I think the Presidency is going to continue to grow in strength for at least a few more cycles as well, furthering its lead over the other two branches.

The SC also has very little control of foreign policy. The ability to wage trillion dollar wars and overthrow governments is a pretty large power to essentially take for granted.
 
Interstate Commerce Clause.
There's always an excuse for making something "federal" that should be within a state's rights. Then there's "executive orders", making it possible for the emperor to make proclamations of whatever he wishes, and it becomes law. What we started with was a good idea, but we've allowed used car salesmen to become the manufacturers of the cars, by electing lawyers to the houses of congress.
 
Apparently, you think we're arguing about which Branch does the most, year in and year out?


Well, we're not. We're talking about which Branch is the most powerful - not the most active. The Courts have no check from either Branch.
 
For arguments sake, let's say I disagree with your choice of 'the people' as the true separation of powers. Instead, it is the elected representative who is the bulwark. He or she alone can respond far more dynamically than 'the people', who are limited to reactions of disapproval, approval, and indifference.
 
Back
Top