Checks and Balances in the government?
539232
So Fine is a moron.  Ignore her idiotic answer.\n\nHere is the right answer:\n\n1.  Congress writes the laws but cannot pass them nor determine their Constitutionality.\n\n2.  The President signs the laws but cannot write them nor determine their constitutionality.\n\n3.  The Supreme Court determines the laws constitutionality but cannot write them nor sign them\n\n\nEnd of story.
221348
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0774837.html\nthat's a really good website it gives you all the info you need on the Judicial, executive, and Legislative braches of the governement it has a great over view of all three of the branches\nyou should ace this assigment with this article!\nBest of Luck!\n~Allie!
630912
It's a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
85616
it is the rules of the government, elected officials make it.
726571
Boy do I agree on this one..every day I see politicians and the media playing the public for fools...the wrong people frequently get blamed for the ills of government....three branches of government....checks and balances....fundamental to understanding and being a good citizen..
961729
Checks and balances are a product of the separation of powers, and the reason for separating them in the first place.\n\nHere's an article on Separation of Powers at the U of Chicago:\nhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10I.html\n\nYou'll find some form of the word "check" used 4 times and "balance" used 6 times. Hope that helps.
845175
the US government is separated into three branches of goverment that theoretically ensure a balance of power.  These branches are the legistislature (house & senate), exectutive (president) and the judicial (supreme court).  \n\nEach branch is designed to work independent of one another, though at the same time work with each other to create laws, implement policy and to interpret the constitution through the judicial process. \n\nA governor is similar to the executive branch, but for a state. \n\nCongressman are those who are elected to the House of Representatives and Senators are those who are elected to the Senate.  Each state is represented by 2 senators for a total of 100.  The number of representatives from each state to the House is determined by its population.  The House and Senate were both created to ensure equal representation of all states, without favoring larger states.\n\nThe House of Representatives writes legistlation (laws).  But before they are made into laws, the Senate must vote on a 51-49 majority to pass it into law and the president must sign the law to become official. \n\nHope this helps!
408490
The executive branch is allowed to veto acts of congress, and is supposed to carry out the laws that congress passes. Congress passes laws and amendments that they feel the courts or the executive need to carry out. Also, they confirm appointments made by the president to the executive branch and the judicial branch. The courts are a check on the power of both the executive and congress by ruling on wether things are  allowed based on the constitution. If a court decides something is not constitutional, the law is deemed void.\n\nIn theory they should be the same; however, in practice the Executive branch has been the most powerful over the years. Then congress, and finally the judicial. However, the judicial branch seems to make vital decisions every once in awhile.
429582
I must answer this from the perspective of an actual government, not just the hypothetical one, so things may vary somewhat (functions and powers may be differently distributed).  But I believe the basic approach is sound for those operating under a representative system of government other than the U.S. Constitution.\n\nSeveral want to suggest all three of these 'branches' are "equally important". \n\nI may agree with what I THINK they mean, but I also think they misunderstand the question, and perhaps the American system of government.\n\nI would agre that all three functions ARE important (even necessary) to a properly functioning state.\n\nI would also agree that there should be a  healthy 'balance' in which each has its own sphere (not trampling on the others) and even has the ability to act as a check on the others (what Americans call 'checks and balances').\n\nBut that is not the same thing as saying all three have "equal" powers or importance.   \n\nKeeping all that in view, I believe the LEGISLATIVE (or what you call the "parlimentarian") is the most important.  It is  THE branch most directly respresntative of and accountable to the people.  It is also THE source of laws, and what is more central to governing that the system of LAWS?\n\nYes, the other branches have important functions in seeing that laws are effectively and fairly carried out, and may even have some authority to prevent (by exective veto) or rescind (by judicial decision) at least some laws, within limits (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court can declare that a law is void because it violates the Constitution, which takes precedence as THE foundational law).  But neither of these branches can MAKE the laws (at least they are not SUPPOSED to!!)   In particular, the courts --as important as their role is in assuring that our laws are upheld-- COULD not be 'the most important in the POLITICAL systm' when (as in the U.S. design) the judges do not stand for election and so are to some extent OUTSIDE "politics".\n\nA bit of support for this understanding may be found in the 2nd definition of "political" in Webster's--\n  "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" --   From this perspective, clearly the legislative branch, and secondarily the executive, have the primacy.\n\nThe much greater detail of Article II of U.S. Constitution --that concerning the legislature -- is one evidence of the importance the founding fathers placed on this branch.  (Their writings back this up.)
743380
A balance is the ability of one branch's power to be counteracted by another (e.g. presidential veto of a bill passed by congress).  A check is a mechanism by which one branch can discipline members of another who overstep the bounds of their authority or commit violations of ethics or the law (e.g. impeachment of the president by Congress).
619768
sadly not much, and this is only referring to the basic system here and how it should work.  if one extends the idea of knowledge of the system to include government actions and such, its probably even lower.  i would like to think i have a fair understanding of it overall, but i know very little actually except what manages to leak out about what goes on behind the closed doors in dc.  a more process transparent government would be very nice.
664177
the government and people.
735818
I believe it goes against the very things Americans fought over for their independence. When checks and balances are basically not permitted, then who polices the police?
734901
The major flaw in this plan is the similar to the flaw in the US government.  The system of checks and balances works for each branch except the ethics commitee (or in the US the judicial branch).  Unless you are requiring a 5 judge concensus on all matters, the 3 unelected members hold all the power, simply because they happened to be  jobhunting when a position came available and were able to pass the exam.  I don't see a policy for deposing a member of the ethics committee, so I assume they hold the position for life.
90551
A government of the people, by the people, for the people.
1051774
Yes... Problem is, in order to do that it appears that you can't have one party control executive and legislative branch since they tend to work along party lines rather than doing what is best for the country and keeping each other in check.\n\nThis applies to both parties-- which is another issue-- that we have a two party system.
949067
A gov't that does both.