Constitution Flashcards
(19 cards)
what are the checks that the Legislative branch do on the Executive branch?
The Senate confirms major Presidential appointments
Congress can pass, delay, reject or amend the President’s legislative proposals
The Senate ratifies Treaties signed by the president (2/3 majority)
Congress has the ‘power of the purse’ (controls executive budget and appropriations)
Congress can override a presidential veto (2/3 majority in both houses)
Congress can impeach and remove the President for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors)
Congress can declare war
what are the checks that the Legislative branch do on the judiciary?
The Senate has to approve all judicial appointments
Congress can create new lower courts
Congress can change the number of judges
Congress can impeach and remove judges for misbehavior
Congress can propose constitutional amendments
what checks do the executive branch do on the Legislature?
The President can propose legislation
The President can veto bills passed by Congress
The President can call special sessions of Congress
The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces
what checks do the executive branch do on the judiciary?
The President appoints all federal judges and supreme court
Pardons
what are the checks that the judiciary do on the legislature?
The supreme court can rule an act unconstitutional
The supreme court interprets laws passed by Congress
what are the checks that the judiciary do on the executive?
The supreme court can rule presidential actions unconstitutional
The supreme court can rule against the executive in cases
The supreme court can issue or refuse warrants to allow police search
what is the argument that checks and balances are ineffective?
They are too weak to stop other branches from becoming too powerful and have no real way to stop new ways of the Executive circumventing checks and balances, also some out of date issues (war)
what is the argument that checks and balances are effective?
they appropriately prevent any branch from becoming too powerful whilst ensuring effective government
(legislative branch) Many of the checks and balances are too politicised which means in times of divided government they are too obstructive (debt ceiling, shutdowns, gridlock especially under Obama with many pointless votes to repeal ACA) or too compliant in united government (AUMF) which results in unsolved problems such as the DREAMers act. Counter this….
Bipartisanship does happen (Gang of 14) - equal marriage, education (NCLB) and gridlock can be argued to be representative and there are ways around inaction as well as key legislation is passed (infrastructure bill, ACA and inflation act)
(legislative branch) Appointments are a very good example of this - where politicisation has been growing since the 1980s and best typified by Garland v ACB. Counter this….
Effective scrutiny is still the norm e.g. Matthew Peterson (unqualified Trump nominee for lower courts rejected by GOP in Senate)
(legislative branch) Foreign policy - congress far less powerful than intended (declare war) and even treaties (executive gets around a supermajority with agreements. Counter this….
president will still seek approval e.g. AUMF and Obama not intervening in Syria
(legislative branch) supermajorities - hyperpartisanship could also apply to problems with amending constitution. Counter this….
the purpose of supermajorities is to ensure changes have broad agreement and cannot happen too easily and also serve as a guard against the tyranny of the majority, in polarised times this is vital to limit the scope for change and ensure stability
(executive branch) more powerful than intended - imperial presidency , especially in foreign policy, including executive agreements (to make agreements - rather than treaties - with other countries without having to get Senate approval). Counter this….
could argue that this has worked well especially due to gridlock in congress and in foreign policy the president has the international prestige to threaten action without having to take it (cold war)
(executive branch) executive orders - a way around checks and balances to allow excessive influence over domestic policy too. unitary executive theory under Bush also Trump’s project 25 - checks and balances may not be able to stop this. lots of executive orders under Obama and Clinton as well which links to ineffective checks and balances and also ineffective legislature. Counter this….
executive orders are a way of addressing contentious issues in a way that is not excessively powerful as shown by the ability of the president in the constitution as well as other presidents are able to undo them immediately
(executive branch) veto- rare since 2000 - mainly due to gridlock, override unlikely - arguably has become pointless and can be used by president to try and bully Congress (Trump over the wall) so potentially dangerous. Counter this….
could be considered effective as not used too often but is still used and when used against popular policies is overridden e.g. S-CHIP, JASTA. also threat of veto can be used creatively to influence policy suggestions and pocket vetoes are hardly used which is positive as it annexes policy
(executive branch) spending - Congress resistance of Trump’s wall could be argued to be ineffective in two ways i it represented a block of a policy that a president was elected to implement and ii it led to the longest ever federal government shutdown (35 days) i.e. too easy for a president to provoke a shutdown iii it was pointless as in the end Trump found away around the issue. Counter this….
could be considered as showing checks and balances do work (a) because congress had been elected more recently than the president and resisting his policy was therefore representative ( wasn’t pointless as it delayed the wall long enough for the 20202 election to intervene)
(judicial branch) far too powerful / unaccountable and due to polarisation and gridlock increasingly the judicial branch is imperial in many areas of policy. Ineffectively checked as amendment to constitution so unlikely so have huge say in key areas such as abortion, gun rights and increasingly elections. Counter this….
this is the role of the supreme court - vital in the upholding of the constitution which ensures checks and balances work and provides a resolution to disputed issues and areas of extreme polarisation such as protecting privacy and free speech in the digital age
(judicial branch) judicial review is a huge self-given power which undermines checks and balances (and can’t be undone due to difficulty of amending the constitution) leading to multiple examples of activism and wielding excessive political power for an unelected body. Citizens united and Shelby county are good examples of triple activism, overriding popular bipartisanship congressional acts in a way which arguably damages the integrity of elections. Counter this….
highly effective at upholding the Constitution - they challenge the other branches in important ways e.g. challenging discriminatory bipartisan congressional acts such as DOMA also resisting threat to US citizens with Guantanamo and arguably LGBTQ+ rights extension is a strong argument in favour of the judicial branch’s role
(judicial branch) has done far too little to challenge executive power and abuse of the constitution from Korematsu to the Patriot Act and allowing the travel ban to stand despite it being called a ‘Muslim ban’ and failed to protect elections from gerrymandering and interfering to allow GWB to win 2000 election. Counter this….
important challenge to excessive power US v Nixon, NY v Clinton and an important arbiter for controversial policies and enables a decision to be made and accepted. If not the court who would make this decision?
