"Separation of Powers" doesn't mean unchecked power for Bush*

[Q]

- Americans have to be the dumbest group of people on earth when it comes to understanding their own government. It doesn't help that the Bush* Gang and state-controlled media gives the impression that 'separation of powers' means that the other branches of government have no business keeping the executive branch accountable.

- The Bush* Gang is essentially using Nixon's gambit of 'executive privilege' to hide illegal activities within the executive branch while claiming immunity from Constitutional 'checks and balances'.

- A refresher course:


Ben's Guide to the US Government

Branches of Government

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention faced a difficult challenge. They wanted to ensure a strong, cohesive central government, yet they also wanted to ensure that no individual or small group in the government would become too powerful. Because of the colonies’ experience under the British monarchy, the delegates wanted to avoid giving any one person or group absolute control in government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the government had lacked centralization, and the delegates didn’t want to have that problem again. To solve these problems, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention created a government with three separate branches, each with its own distinct powers. This system would establish a strong central government, while insuring a balance of power.

Governmental power and functions in the United States rest in three branches of government: the legislative, judicial, and executive. Article 1 of the Constitution defines the legislative branch and vests power to legislate in the Congress of the United States. The executive powers of the President are defined in Article 2. Article 3 places judicial power in the hands of one Supreme Court and inferior courts as Congress sees necessary to establish. A complete diagram of the branches of the U.S. Government may be found in the U.S. Government Manual (PDF, 9.7k).

Though in this system of a "separation of powers" each branch operates independently of the others. However, there are built in "checks and balances" to prevent tyrannous concentration of power in any one branch and to protect the rights and liberties of citizens. For example, the President can veto bills approved by Congress and the President nominates individuals to serve in the Federal judiciary; the Supreme Court can declare a law enacted by Congress or an action by the President unconstitutional; and Congress can impeach the President and Federal court justices and judges.

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/government/branches.html

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. Q i'm just about ready to give up...sigh

[Q]

2. Giving up in not in my nature...

...but I know what you mean. Just this morning on CSPAN a good number of callers thought it was awful that anyone in the Bush* administration had to explain their actions to...uh...the Democrats in congress. What they seem to want is a 'Consitutional dictatorship' where the executive branch has absolute power in a 'time of war'.

- That's why Democrats need to forget about the economy and take Bush* head on in the matters of 9-11, national security and war.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. i agree....but they won't...

[DeepModem Mom]

4. This administration is riding roughshed over our system --

and I'm afraid our citizenry lacks enough education about the system to understand, or realize, it.

[Q]

5. Indeed...they have no idea about the 'balance of powers'...

...and seem to think a president can become a dictator during a 'time of war'.

- This is the wrong time in history for the opposition to be so cowardly.

[StlMo]

6. Give Americans some credit.

The people are angry with King George.
America will crush Bush in November.