• 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!

The Checks and Balances are more of an Allusion than Definite Directives

Prof_Lunaphiles

Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
586
Reaction score
56
Location
Transient
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Can anyone provide a chart that maps the "checks and balances?"

We all know the appointment of federal judges and prosecutors is somehow checked and balanced by the President recommending appointments and then the opposition political partisans in the Senate use the platform to berate the nominees - it is a dishonest theater we have to endure when the nominee is for a Supreme Court position.

So, what are all of the checks and how do they "work" to form a valid "balance?"
 
6555451.jpg




Legislative Branch
  • Checks on the Executive
    • Impeachment power (House)
    • Trial of impeachments (Senate)
    • Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
    • May override Presidential vetoes
    • Senate approves departmental appointments
    • Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
    • Approval of replacement Vice President
    • Power to declare war
    • Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
    • President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address
  • Checks on the Judiciary
    • Senate approves federal judges
    • Impeachment power (House)
    • Trial of impeachments (Senate)
    • Power to initiate constitutional amendments
    • Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
    • Power to set jurisdiction of courts
    • Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court
  • Checks on the Legislature - because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.
    • Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
    • House must originate revenue bills
    • Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
    • All journals are to be published
Executive Branch
  • Checks on the Legislature
    • Veto power
    • Vice President is President of the Senate
    • Commander in chief of the military
    • Recess appointments
    • Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
    • May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
    • Compensation cannot be diminished
  • Checks on the Judiciary
    • Power to appoint judges
    • Pardon power
  • Checks on the Executive
    • Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties
Judicial Branch
  • Checks on the Legislature
    • Judicial review
    • Seats are held on good behavior
    • Compensation cannot be diminished
  • Checks on the Executive
    • Judicial review
    • Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment
See also:The term "checks and balances" is borne of the recognition of the interrelationship and implications of the design of the US government, not because there is an enumeration of such things.

OP-er, have you graduated from high school? I'm asking because I'm hard pressed to think of one good reason why anyone who has would ask:
  • "Can anyone provide a chart that maps the "checks and balances?"
  • "What are all of the checks and how do they "work" to form a valid "balance?"
I feel ask though we've been asked to perform a seventh grader's homework assignment or some such....
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys that is what I have been looking for - where did you find that stuff?
 

That is all great on paper. It does not work when the Rich and Powerful own the 2 parties and all the candidates we have to choose from when we vote. Now all branches of government are beholding to the rich and powerful who fund all the candidates. While we have the illusion of choice their puppets do their bidding no matter who we elect. They do put on a multibillion dollar maybe even a multitrillion dollar show with their media. Like the super bowl we are well divided cheering our team but in the end they all work for the NFL and their owners. But the joy of my man winning is worth more than actually having of government that serves the people.
 
Can anyone provide a chart that maps the "checks and balances?"

We all know the appointment of federal judges and prosecutors is somehow checked and balanced by the President recommending appointments and then the opposition political partisans in the Senate use the platform to berate the nominees - it is a dishonest theater we have to endure when the nominee is for a Supreme Court position.

So, what are all of the checks and how do they "work" to form a valid "balance?"

I think you'll get better responses in this forum if you do a quick google search before posting a question. I somehow doubt that an image search wouldn't reap the very same charts that people have posted in here.
 
What are the checks and balances for federal agencies like the EPA, as an example. The EPA is able to violate separation of powers to create laws, rules and regulations apart from the legislative branch and apart from the veto power of the president. This is true of all agencies. I chose the EPA, as an example, since this is known punching bag, that is easy to see.

In practical terms, 100,000 pages of EPA regulations would take a lot of time for the Legislative branch to write and oversee every so many years. The President may then not have time to read the entire thing, to veto it, or not. The EPA is only one of hundreds of Federal agencies. This adds up to millions and millions pages of rules, laws and regulations.

The huge time required, to be part of the checks and balances loop, would cut into vacation time, funding raising time, and well as require overtime for Congress to do their job. As such, members of both Houses would not have all the extra time needed to serve themselves, cashing in with lobbyist. Therefore, these agencies are given unchecked freedom, to make laws, that can bypass the veto power of the executive branch; legal specialty weeds. The president can make an executive order, but that is not the same as his power of veto in formal sense of the normal law making.

One way to deal with this, is to streamline all Federal agencies, so Congress can do its job, and not violate separation of powers. The lazy crooks in Congress are paid to work for us, and not themselves. These unchecked agencies, as currently set up, are a way for donors and lobbyists to avoid separation of powers. It also allows members of the Legislative branch, to shake down donors for donations. For example, if the EPA makes it taboo, to use water near federal lands, the farmer's lobby will pay politicians, donations, to help out with the unchecked power. Checks and balance for the bureaucratic state is often pay to play. I do not see pay to play anywhere in checks and balances.

The founding fathers never envisioned such a bloated government with so many bloated and intrusive agencies. They assumed this would go to the states. The three branches of government were expected to have a smaller work load of important things. This may explain why they never made checks and balance provisions for bloat federal agencies. This may be unconstitutional.

The diagram for checks and balances, may need to be revised to include the bureaucratic state. The Collusion delusion shows what can happens when there are no checks and balances for the bureaucratic state. This cancerous branch of government can ignore the chain of command, such that even lower level employees, can try to take out a president. How can an elected president, be under the thumb of unelected officials like Comey? This is like the janitor able to hold the CEO hostage, simply because there is no set checks and balances due to union rules?
 
Can anyone provide a chart that maps the "checks and balances?"

We all know the appointment of federal judges and prosecutors is somehow checked and balanced by the President recommending appointments and then the opposition political partisans in the Senate use the platform to berate the nominees - it is a dishonest theater we have to endure when the nominee is for a Supreme Court position.

So, what are all of the checks and how do they "work" to form a valid "balance?"

There are a lot of books out there that explain the history and philosophy of our founders, most of which explain the concept of checks and balances. Also, I recommend that you read the constitution, then read the Federalist Papers, where the founders explain it themselves. I don't know why they don't teach this stuff in schools anymore. In 1966, I couldn't graduate from 8th grade without passing a full day's written and oral test on this very subject.
 

Priceless!

:2funny:

Maybe we're being a little snarky to this OP, but claiming that the very foundation of our system of democratic government is allusion was a bit too tempting to hold back. This forum can sometimes be a target-rich environment.
 
Can anyone provide a chart that maps the "checks and balances?"

We all know the appointment of federal judges and prosecutors is somehow checked and balanced by the President recommending appointments and then the opposition political partisans in the Senate use the platform to berate the nominees - it is a dishonest theater we have to endure when the nominee is for a Supreme Court position.

So, what are all of the checks and how do they "work" to form a valid "balance?"

As for checks and balances for nominations be they judges or political appointments as provided by the constitution, that was destroyed with ex-senate majority leader Reid's first use of the nuclear option which set the precedence for any president whose party controls the senate to nominate with confirmation guaranteed of even the most wacko candidates.

Up and until Reid set the precedence any confirmation of any presidential political appointment required 60 votes for cloture in the senate. This meant that at least a few senators of the opposing party had to vote to confirmed. It wasn't a one party affair. It in my opinion meant more moderate judges, judges at least acceptable to a few senators of the opposing party.

Today, any checks on presidential nomination is out the window if the party of the president controls the senate. Moderation is out, the president is now free to appoint with guaranteed confirmation the most extreme individuals as he wants. All thanks to ex-senate majority leader Harry Reid.

Under the above circumstances, we have no checks and balances.
 
Two things stand out about our current government. First, the Senate is an abysmal place that is far from being the most deliberative body in the world. It is a joke largely because many of our Senators are empty suits whose only concern is re-election and partisanship. They are a disgrace to the very notion of a Senate as envisioned by Hamilton and Madison. Secondly, the courts are now so partisan that they too are a joke. I have no confidence in them at all given the way they vote and are appointed. All systems rely upon the good faith and integrity of those who have the responsibility. The abdication of the Congress to the Executive in regards to war is the most egregious example of how badly we have corrupted the original intent. The POTUS has accumulated far too much power largely because the Congress has given it to the executive. We are in this mess because of money, partisanship, empathy by the voters and the lack of faith in our institutions created by one giant pissant, Ronald Reagan who made it a joke to say the government is the problem. A whole sector of our population thinks the government is a joke and can do nothing well. So they prove it to themselves by electing morons.
 
Priceless!

:2funny:

Maybe we're being a little snarky to this OP, but claiming that the very foundation of our system of democratic government is allusion was a bit too tempting to hold back. This forum can sometimes be a target-rich environment.

My response was not snarkiness. I was expressing my contempt for the question and the indolence that gave rise not only to it, but also for the intellectual indolence shown by the combination of it and the original inquiry in the OP.

If you look at my reply in post 4, which is the post that immediately precedes the "where did you find that stuff" inquiry, you'll see that I provided three reference links. You'll see too that I concluded the post saying, "I feel ask though we've been asked to perform a seventh grader's homework assignment or some such...."

The request for sourcing effectively convinced me that, with post 4, I'd just done someone's homework assignment for them...And even if I hadn't, Constitutional checks and balances is hardly an arcane topic; thus scholastic assignment or not, there's hardly cause for someone to ask anyone about their nature.

I have little forbearance for fools and knaves, and I have no remorse about not doing so.


The Lord helps they who help themselves.
-- Every mentor I've ever had​
 
What are the checks and balances for federal agencies like the EPA, as an example...


...The diagram for checks and balances, may need to be revised to include the bureaucratic state. The Collusion delusion shows what can happens when there are no checks and balances for the bureaucratic state.

Exactly, that is what I wanted to get to - there is something amiss about it all.
 
Moderation is out, the president is now free to appoint with guaranteed confirmation the most extreme individuals as he wants.

It should be odd that we are able to describe judges as being "extreme," and we don't recognize that that is a problem with the checks and balances.
 
My response was not snarkiness. I was expressing my contempt for the question and the indolence that gave rise not only to it, but also for the intellectual indolence shown by the combination of it and the original inquiry in the OP.
Hopefully, I'll take some time and review your catalogue of opinions.

If you look at my reply in post 4, which is the post that immediately precedes the "where did you find that stuff" inquiry, you'll see that I provided three reference links. You'll see too that I concluded the post saying, "I feel ask though we've been asked to perform a seventh grader's homework assignment or some such...."

The request for sourcing effectively convinced me that, with post 4, I'd just done someone's homework assignment for them...And even if I hadn't, Constitutional checks and balances is hardly an arcane topic; thus scholastic assignment or not, there's hardly cause for someone to ask anyone about their nature.
The request for source was a response to your snarkiness. You may have noticed that there are two charts offered - they are different. As you may have noticed there are, at least, two prevailing interpretations of the Constitution, as institutionalized by the descriptors for Supreme Court Justice nominees - conservative or liberal. Obviously, there is no agreement as to what the Constitution directs the government to do.

As it would be, some more people came along and offered some criticisms as to the actuality of the checks and balances

I have little forbearance for fools and knaves, and I have no remorse about not doing so.
I'm no fool - you are. You believe in a very inadequate government model. A model that was designed in a very different era of technology and sophistication.

The Founders would be very embarrassed that people like you, with all of your education and observances of the government, cannot recognize that the "checks and balances," of a design from different era are significantly deteriorated, and provide for the corruption that trickles down and causes the social disorientation that, ultimately, derails the approach to tranquility.


The Lord helps they who help themselves.
-- Every mentor I've ever had​
There is no god. If there were a god it would have revealed itself to me. There has never been anything more important in the history of Mankind than what I am delivering - scientific knowledge classification system.
 
Two things stand out about our current government. First, the Senate is an abysmal place that is far from being the most deliberative body in the world.
What is a more deliberate body?

It is a joke largely because many of our Senators are empty suits whose only concern is re-election and partisanship. They are a disgrace to the very notion of a Senate as envisioned by Hamilton and Madison.
The Seventeenth Amendment set-up the new game theory for the Senate, and eliminated a very significant "check and balance."

Because of the Seventeenth Amendment we cannot recognize flawed state governments. The absence of senators indicated that the state legislatures were indecisive, and subsequently, undeserving of electoral privileges in the federal senate.

Secondly, the courts are now so partisan that they too are a joke. I have no confidence in them at all given the way they vote and are appointed.
I agree. Although, we are indoctrinated to believe that the courts are separate, it is obvious to the critically thinking observer, that if the hierarchy of the offices are determined by the other branches, then it is not a separate entity.

I am able to describe it as such, because I envision a new way of organizing the judiciary - do you have a reorganization plan?

As you may know, the judiciary has been reorganized by the federal congress a couple of times - judiciary acts.

Because of the evolution of the society has been relatively adequate, we now have the technology and sophisticated personnel to correctly separate the judicatory; but we are beholden to people who revere the Constitution and state constitutions as being the work of divine intervention.


All systems rely upon the good faith and integrity of those who have the responsibility.
Exactly. Corruption is not symptomatic of nefarious persons manipulating an altruistic just governing system; but rather, it is symptomatic of nefarious persons manipulating a perpetually faulty system. Perpetual corruption is ultimately symptomatic of an inadequate separation and coordination of the government responsibilities.


The POTUS has accumulated far too much power largely because the Congress has given it to the executive.
I think they did that to ensure that the public focus is on the President, and allows them to berate the Executive in their campaigns, as they do.
 
It should be odd that we are able to describe judges as being "extreme," and we don't recognize that that is a problem with the checks and balances.

Judges are political appointees, as such they usually hold the views of those who appoint them. The same political agenda that is. Of course you do have some which turn out completely opposite from the original reason they were appointed. Souter is a case in point. G.H.W. Bush thought he would be a very conservative justice, Souter ended up being liberal.
 
There are a lot of books out there that explain the history and philosophy of our founders, most of which explain the concept of checks and balances.
Why so many books - why don't the government charters explain the checks and balances with in the context of the charter? Certainly, if we were to initiate a convention, in modern America, to rewrite the constitution, we would not be limited to a couple of broadsheets of text - would we???

I mean the disclaimers, and license agreements, of our cell phones is longer than the Constitution and in finer print - you can fit it all in your wallet.

Also, I recommend that you read the constitution, then read the Federalist Papers, where the founders explain it themselves.
You think I haven't read the Constitution??? You are probably someone who claims that such and such congress member has not read the Constitution, either - aren't you???

I'll bet your wife, and children, and your siblings, have a different interpretation of the Constitution than you do; and because of the differing interpretations and your inability to accept that that is because it is ambiguous, the best you can conclude is that people have not read it.

The Federalist Papers, are you serious, you understand the Federalist Papers?!?!?! Ask the people you know, and care about, if they understand the Federalist Papers. Do you think the ghetto dwellers understand the Federalist Papers - the almighty and brilliant Constitution?!?!?!

I don't know why they don't teach this stuff in schools anymore.
Because the government does not mandate it, because some of the politicians know the government organization is a mess, and that it needs to be reordered.

Maybe we're being a little snarky to this OP, but claiming that the very foundation of our system of democratic government is allusion was a bit too tempting to hold back. This forum can sometimes be a target-rich environment.
The foundation of the government was in a different era of sophistication and technology - and the system is inadequate for the expectations of a more sophisticated society that expects a better formulated system that graduates social engineering techniques.

I don't care if you are being snarky to me, ultimately, I win, because I figured out the problem and solution. We need a new government model (format) that correctly subdivides the three parts and aligns the responsibilities of the courts, legislatures, and security divisions.

I am years ahead of you, and you have no idea how privileged you are to encounter me - I will be the name associated with the successor to the almighty United States Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Two things stand out about our current government. First, the Senate is an abysmal place that is far from being the most deliberative body in the world. It is a joke largely because many of our Senators are empty suits whose only concern is re-election and partisanship. They are a disgrace to the very notion of a Senate as envisioned by Hamilton and Madison. Secondly, the courts are now so partisan that they too are a joke. I have no confidence in them at all given the way they vote and are appointed. All systems rely upon the good faith and integrity of those who have the responsibility. The abdication of the Congress to the Executive in regards to war is the most egregious example of how badly we have corrupted the original intent. The POTUS has accumulated far too much power largely because the Congress has given it to the executive. We are in this mess because of money, partisanship, empathy by the voters and the lack of faith in our institutions created by one giant pissant, Ronald Reagan who made it a joke to say the government is the problem. A whole sector of our population thinks the government is a joke and can do nothing well. So they prove it to themselves by electing morons.

This is the result of political factions, George Washington warn the people of factions being out for their own interest this creates a despotic government.
 
This is the result of political factions, George Washington warn the people of factions being out for their own interest this creates a despotic government.

Admirable as that may appear, what good is it?

If the system has lead to unwanted political faction, then obviously, nobody has generated a correction.

I do not believe political faction was an unforeseen consequence of the establishment of the government. I think Hamilton described factions in the opening article of the Federalist Papers. It is hard to believe that political faction was unforeseen - it would not make sense to organize a legislature comprised of state (and municipal) factions that had segregated economic systems.
 
Last edited:
5th grade? :2razz:

It was a fair question and that swipe at him was unjustified in my opinion.

To answer his question: Google - but also Google Images for charts and diagrams. Just plug in your key words and BINGO!
 
Why so many books - why don't the government charters explain the checks and balances with in the context of the charter? Certainly, if we were to initiate a convention, in modern America, to rewrite the constitution, we would not be limited to a couple of broadsheets of text - would we???

I mean the disclaimers, and license agreements, of our cell phones is longer than the Constitution and in finer print - you can fit it all in your wallet.

You think I haven't read the Constitution??? You are probably someone who claims that such and such congress member has not read the Constitution, either - aren't you???

I'll bet your wife, and children, and your siblings, have a different interpretation of the Constitution than you do; and because of the differing interpretations and your inability to accept that that is because it is ambiguous, the best you can conclude is that people have not read it.

The Federalist Papers, are you serious, you understand the Federalist Papers?!?!?! Ask the people you know, and care about, if they understand the Federalist Papers. Do you think the ghetto dwellers understand the Federalist Papers - the almighty and brilliant Constitution?!?!?!


Because the government does not mandate it, because some of the politicians know the government organization is a mess, and that it needs to be reordered.


The foundation of the government was in a different era of sophistication and technology - and the system is inadequate for the expectations of a more sophisticated society that expects a better formulated system that graduates social engineering techniques.

I don't care if you are being snarky to me, ultimately, I win, because I figured out the problem and solution. We need a new government model (format) that correctly subdivides the three parts and aligns the responsibilities of the courts, legislatures, and security divisions.

I am years ahead of you, and you have no idea how privileged you are to encounter me - I will be the name associated with the successor to the almighty United States Constitution.

Only if you and 4 of your pals get on the Supreme Court, which is the absolute dictator over everything and everyone. The US Constitution is as relevant and irrelevant as 5 members of the Supreme Court dictate or allow. We are not a Republic Democracy. We are a judicial oligarchy for which suggestive subordinate advisers - who can be totally ignored by the judicial all-power czars - are elected.

Quickly after the American Revolution, the Supreme Court rewrote the Declaration of Independence replacing "We the people" with "We the federal judges."
 
Back
Top Bottom