• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why a need for separation of powers?

crazyme

Banned
Joined
May 24, 2018
Messages
687
Reaction score
14
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For the reason that each branch can be responsible and have obligations and duties to keep one another right through 'checks and balances'.
 
For the reason that each branch can be responsible and have obligations and duties to keep one another right through 'checks and balances'.

Your title asks a question, but your post seems to give an answer. I say, 'seems', because to be quite honest, you have not written your post in a coherent manner. Other than the checks and balances bit, which is basic sixth-grade stuff, I have no idea as to what you're saying in your post.
 
For the reason that each branch can be responsible and have obligations and duties to keep one another right through 'checks and balances'.

It is actually the inverse. The checks and balances that were designed in the federal Constitution are to ensure that governmental powers remain separated among the three branches. The justification for a separation of governmental power is that "[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self[-]appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison, Federalist No. 47 (accessed at The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources - Congress.gov Resources). The clearest example is when the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are vested in one person. That person may enact any law he or she wishes, will gladly execute the law. If another who is adversely affected by the enactment and execution of the law were to seek redress in a court of justice, the validity of the foregoing will invariably be upheld. However, this type of absolute authority is less likely if the powers are compartmentalized.

Checks and balances ensure the continuation of such compartmentalization by authorizing each department to keep the others within their constitutionally delegated authority. For example, judicial review has been employed by the federal judiciary to declare laws enacted by the Congress and actions taken by the executive to be void as a result of irreconcilable conflict with the provisions of the federal Constitution.
 
Separation of powers is critical to a representative government.

Congress cannot make a law without the consent of the president, except in the case of veto override, and even then the law can be struck as unconstitutional by the courts.

The courts can make rulings, however having no military, police or purse strings, they are unable to enforce their rulings without the assistance of the executive branch.

It's like a governmental game of rock scissors paper.
 
For the reason that each branch can be responsible and have obligations and duties to keep one another right through 'checks and balances'.

Because if we didn't have a divided government ("separation of powers"), it might be more efficient, and millions of people who make a living working for it or any of the assorted Beltway Bandits might have to get real jobs. Which would obviously be unacceptable.

Separation of powers is critical to a representative government.

Congress cannot make a law without the consent of the president, except in the case of veto override, and even then the law can be struck as unconstitutional by the courts.

The courts can make rulings, however having no military, police or purse strings, they are unable to enforce their rulings without the assistance of the executive branch.

It's like a governmental game of rock scissors paper.

Is that what your middle school teacher told you?
 
Because if we didn't have a divided government ("separation of powers"), it might be more efficient, and millions of people who make a living working for it or any of the assorted Beltway Bandits might have to get real jobs. Which would obviously be unacceptable....

Do you mean to say you would prefer an oligarchic or monarchic type government?
 
Do you mean to say you would prefer an oligarchic or monarchic type government?

Oligarchy is an inevitable fact in human societies. I prefer a system with rational command structures, i.e. the head-of-government has real power to make his subordinates do as he says.
 
Oligarchy is an inevitable fact in human societies. I prefer a system with rational command structures, i.e. the head-of-government has real power to make his subordinates do as he says.

You're currently living in a system of rational command structures that allow for the prevention of oligarchy.
 
Oligarchy is an inevitable fact in human societies. I prefer a system with rational command structures, i.e. the head-of-government has real power to make his subordinates do as he says.

That would, without a doubt, be the most efficient way of governing. However, you would need a very capable competent leader for this. And both the electoral system in place and the constitution in place do not offer a guarantee for this. (Look at he Trumpet)

So until then, it would be wise to stick what we have got. However, an alternative solution to the issues you mention has been suggested in the below thread.

How to make America great again

Joey
 
That would, without a doubt, be the most efficient way of governing. However, you would need a very capable competent leader for this. And both the electoral system in place and the constitution in place do not offer a guarantee for this. (Look at he Trumpet)

So until then, it would be wise to stick what we have got. However, an alternative solution to the issues you mention has been suggested in the below thread.

How to make America great again

Joey

Any reasonably competent manager could do the job better than it is currently being done.

Replacing universal suffrage democracy with a limited franchise would be a vast improvement. But if you had the power to free most of the country from democratic politics, I don't see any reason not to go all the way.
 
Oligarchy is an inevitable fact in human societies. I prefer a system with rational command structures, i.e. the head-of-government has real power to make his subordinates do as he says.
Sounds a lot like the Third Reich. They were very efficient at following Hitler's orders.
 
Hitler also believed the sky was blue.
You're not a fan of democracy. Own it.

So tell me, where did Hitler go wrong? Was it opening the second front against the counsel of his generals? Or was it failure to conquer Great Britain?
 
Back
Top Bottom