Other than lip service, do you believe citizens benefit by the separation of powers doctrine?

Question

The U. S. Constitution’s separation of powers has its origins in  the British idea of the desirability of a Mixed Regime where the King, the  Lords, and the Commons all checked and balanced one another as the three  great estates of the realm.  While the Constitution contains no express separation-of-powers clause, the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the separation of powers. Nevertheless, the growth of the president’s power to a magnitude not foreseen at the Constitution’s adoption has been largely enabled by favorable rulings of the Supreme Court. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Afghanistan War of 2001 and the Iraq War of 2002. It doesn’t appear like separation of powers when both congress and the Supreme Court aid and/or go along with what the president does. There are hot button issues such as abortion, movie star sex, flag burning, etc., that get people all excited However, on things that are important to those in charge and that give them more power and control, all three branches of the government plus mainstream media speak with one voice.  And, typically the Supreme Courts and other courts make ruling that favor the government; not the people. How could it be otherwise, when they are appointed and confirmed by the other two branches? The people have no input other than voting which never changes things toward more freedom.

Chazmatazz269 · Accepted Answer

Yup. You make good points, but let’s look at some of the points you overlooked. Voting would be more influential if as many people voted for elected officials as do for reality series and game show results. This a reflection of a gross shift in our values. Also, as a society, the US is STILL falling for the pure corruption of the two party system. Elected officials don’t ever really have to do anything because they keep us bickering at each other in these “us vs them” social dichotomies; black vs white, men vs women, cis vs queer, rich vs poor, etc. All the while, they’re still emptying the coffers and IF they actually accomplish anything it’s usually reversed by the next administration. SHOULD the branches check each other more often? Absolutely. Will they as long as we keep the two party system and wage war against ourselves instead of on them? Almost never. Why should they? We haven’t really expected them to for generations. How many people do you know always do the right thing even if they never have to? Ell oh ell!

Guardian45 · Accepted Answer

This is The BEST Q I have seen on G@G! You have a BRILLIANT FUTURE ahead of you!

Now to your Q! I fear that this triumvirate has become unbalanced TOO! Presidents have had disproportionate influence with eroding accountability. As a result, this 'contagion' has spread from the Executive Branch to both the Legislative and Judiciary Branchs. Worse the US People who vote have become increasingly disinterested or uneducated about the running of their governments and caved in populism. I fear for the lack of accountability and interest in the chambers of democracy for the last Great Super Power, The United States of America. It is The Decline of The American Empire in action!

But kids like you give me hope to FIX this festering morass in the next generation!

Red_Arrow · Answer

They should benefit. But recently the Trump Cult has taken over all three branches. Try as he did, Trump could not overthrow the election of Biden, but he has used his power to get Congress to do what he wants them to by setting others against anyone who doe not follow his lead. And he has filled the Supreme Court with people who seem to have no morals. During hearings to select Supreme Court Justices, many of them lied about how they would treat certain matters.
Though Congress has the power to declare war, the President has always been able to take military actions on a temporary basis to protect our national interests, and Congress can extend those or cut off funding for them.

goaded · Answer

From 1789 until 1991, not a single justice was appointed to the supreme court by fewer than 2/3rds of the Senate. Most of those who weren't confirmed by acclamation had far fewer than 20 votes against their confirmation. RGB, for example, was confirmed 96-3.

Then came Clarence Thomas. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were nakedly partisan, arguably lied under oath about their respect for precedent (specifically asked because of Roe), and were confirmed by wafer thin margins.

Now the country is up shit creek.

Whatever2929292 · Answer

We do. But we have all these bureaucracies like the EPA and many other three letter agencies. That think they can just pass laws now. They are there to ENFORCE the laws not pass laws.

Which the supreme court said that they can not do that. They are becoming the 4th unelected government.

There is a separation of powers for a reason. So that one person can't do whatever they want and there is checks and balances. But the problem is that people like Soros puts his people into power and corrupts the government.

There is also another split of powers that is Federal, State, and Local governments but again even that Soros puts his people into power at all levels of government.

peedy · Answer

I just wanted to say for r a 13 year your really up to date and have a very good understanding of the world around you. I've been paying attention to your questions and they're good questions a lot of adults don't know what your talking about, im really impressed by your knowledge your understanding your maturity everything is far beyond the average 13 year old and if you are who you say you are and not some adult faking it, you got a head on your shoulders and a brite future ahead of you

Guy13 · Answer

There’s no such thing. It’s no where in the Constitution. It was in a letter from Jefferson to Danbury Anabaptist, I think. It was a request refunnel Anabaptist monies to the fundamentalist church rather than the Congregational church.

Adaeva · Answer

What separation of powers? The executive, the legislature, the courts, and major media all work as a unit for their benefit and the detriment of the American people.

Hispanic-Cool-Guy · Answer

Yes. Ideally a whole centralized government with one man in absolute political power works best, but in practice it often doesn't work.

A divided government of power fights off corruption and abuse of power so it benefits the citizens.

DWornock · Answer

There is no separation-of-powers clause in the Constitution nor is there much separation-of-powers in our current government. However, it would be nice if there was.

FilmGuy93 · Answer

Yes. We unquestionably benefit from the separation of powers.

joeldalton · Answer

100 percent we benefit from separation of powers. The founding fathers knew what could happen if one person (or group) had unchecked power.

driven159 · Answer

It's more of a failsafe than anything else so just one group can't run everything

jimmy2 · Answer

Yes that how it is

RuthlessAggression · Answer

yeah

Other than lip service, do you believe citizens benefit by the separation of powers doctrine?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Other than lip service, do you believe citizens benefit by the separation of powers doctrine?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.