What might happen if the system of checks and balances were eliminated?
There would be no way short of revolution to stop someone from abusing power. We see it happening when judges make decisions that create laws. That is not their job, they are to interpret the law and decide if it is constitutional. The checks and balances protect us from tyranny. If the president could not be impeached by congress, he could assume total power. If the congress could execute the law and have a police or military force, they would be able to ignore the veto power of the president.
How does the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government affect Supreme Court Decisions?
If you do nothing else today, please trust me on this -- the top two answerers to this question are totally wrong. Of course Congress can overturn the Supreme Court, and does so frequently. The Supreme Court rules in one of two ways: Statutory Interpretation, and Constitutional Interpretation. Under Statutory Interpretation, the court is interpreting a law made by Congress. Some years ago, the Supreme Court made a series of interpretations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress was not amused by these rulings; and to rebuff the court, re-wrote the law in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. If the court is interpreting statute, Congress can check the Supreme Court be re-writing the statute, thus nullifying the court's ruling. This is Congress saying to the court -- "No. You got it wrong. We didn't mean THAT at all. THIS is what we meant." If the Court is ruling on a matter of Constitution, Congress can rebuff the Supreme Court by passing a new Constitutional amendment and forwarding it on to the states for ratification. After what many in Congress deemed to be poor Supreme Court rulings based on the 14th amendment, Congress passed and sent on to the states, the 15th Amendment, as a means of trying to put the courts back in line. Furthermore, Article III of the Constitution gives Congress total control over the Supreme Court's appellate docket. If Congress wanted to, they could pass a law, and then forbid the court to accept cases based on it. They did this a few years ago by forbidding the court to hear cases based on the Defense of Marriages Act. The effect of this is to impose a "gag rule" on the court. Congress has MANY checks on the court -- trust me.
How does the system of checks and balances limit the power of the President(Please Help)?
Limits on the President's power: 1. Cannot start wars unless we are actually attacked or under imminent threat of attack Only Congress can declare war but in recent decades Presidents have gotten around this "CHECK" on their power by calling military activities such things as "Police action" rather than a war. 2. Cannot spend money unless Congress approves this action first: Congress supposedly controls what are called the "purse strings" but, again, recent presidents have found ways to get around this restriction at times. Congress can "cut off" funding for any program wanted by the president, effectively "killing" or ending that program. 3. With super majorities ( 2/3 to 3/4 votes), Congress can override a president's veto of a law. 4. The president needs approval (confirmation) of Congress for his major appointees to top government positions (Cabinet officers such as Sec. of State, key program heads, etc) as well as for his appointees to Federal courts, including the Supreme Court. 5. The Supreme Court can declare any law signed by the President UNCONSTITUTIONAL, making the law null and void (thrown out and not enforceable). Obama's health care law is currently being reviewed by the Supreme and could be thrown out next year. 6. For treason and major felonies, the president can be IMPEACHED by the House and tried in the Senate acting as jury. That happened to Clinton but he was acquitted of the charges in the Senate. If the Senate finds a president guilty (convicts him), then the president is forcibly removed from office and the vice-president takes over as president; next in line after the vice-president is the Speaker of the House.
What is the definition of checks and balances?
A system of approvals by different branches of govt. that prevents any one branch or elected official from making laws or rules without approval of the others.
With the current checks and balances of the American government, what's the most damage the Trump presidency can inflict?
I think the most he could do is reverse any executive decisions that Obama had done previously. However, I find it unlikely, as most incoming presidents tend to respect the outgoing president’s decisions, regardless of if they agree with them or not.He can also nominate conservative judges, which would likely get confirmed by a Republican Congress, within the next two years. Though, it would be hilarious if Trump went ahead and nominated the same person Obama nominated. We will see whom Trump chooses. This means a possible reversal on a whole lot of Liberal and Progressive decisions, most of which would hopefully be fought in court by the Democrats. Although with the record of Democrats recently, I doubt they will fight it themselves, I think it will be grassroots groups like MoveOn.Org | Democracy In Action and the like who will lead the fight in this arena.Obamacare, so everyone “gets it”, cannot be fully repealed. It is impossible. Trump already knows this, so what he will do is MODIFY it. And these modifications will be along conservative lines, so that Congress accepts them. This is what was going to happen regardless of who won the presidency. The issue is that Trump will lose a lot of his supporters, since this was one of his main campaign promises.After that, I do not think there is much more damage he can cause. That should be about it.
What is the meaning of the concept of checks and balances? How do checks and balances help prevent tyrannical government?
A concept of modern democracy is check and balance, where the most powerful institutions of the government restrain each other from gaining absolute power.This check and balance concept is applied mainly among the bodies of government who pass laws. In every democracy, these are three most powerful bodies, depending on country: President/Prime Minister, Congress/Parliament and Supreme Court. In any case of passing a law, the checks and balance of the government causes the action to happen only when these bodies unanimously agree to pass it. In this way, absolute power does not rest on just a single body but distributed among bodies of different interests, thereby preventing any sort of tyrannical/dicatorial government.In case of USA, any law cannot be passed or war started unless President, Congress and Supreme Court all vote for it.
President Trump has said that the constitutional system of checks and balances is "an archaic system … very bad for the country. " Is he right?
In some respects Mr Trump is indeed right. The Constitution was written over two hundred years ago, with specific objectives, and in a very different environment. Its authors could not envisage all the changes in society and technology but they very sensibly built in a mechanism that enabled it to be amended. Unfortunately, they also failed to foresee changes in the political environment in the US that makes it almost impossible to pass an Amendment these days. There have been no substantive Amendments since 1951 and none at all since 1971. Even if the case was urgent it is hard to imagine any amendment being passed in the current environment.So changes in the rights to carry arms are an issue; changes in the composition of Congress to end the bizarre over-representation of states like Wyoming and Rhode Island, especially in the Senate are an issue. Depending on one’s political outlook, there may be others where the Constitution can genuinely be considered ‘archaic’ but on the control of over-mighty rulers is is absolutely hell-on-wheels. This is what it was designed for and the authors knew exactly what they were doing. It is astonishing and wonderful that an ‘archaic’ document is holding up so well. If the authors had a time machine and could see Mr Trump in the distance they could not have done a better job .Mr Trump’s problem is that he has never had to cope with opposition before. He manages a private company in a highly authoritarian style. He is unable to cope with people with equal authority contradicting him and the Constitution gives a lot of people that level of authority: although the scope of their authority may be much narrower than his, within their scope their levels of authority are the same. Lawyers and directors of public companies (UK useage) are used to managing multiple stakeholders. Mr Trump is not. He is struggling and, as is his style, he is blaming someone or something else.Poor Mr Trump. The Constitution is certainly bad for him (though it got him the job) but it’s doing its work by protecting the USA. Chapeau!