4 ms·

> It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better bal

by IncRnd 4y ago

> It's good to see here that one part of the government is calling another part to account. But I have to think that's unusual, and I'd love to see a better balance of responsibilities here. This is the very reason and design for the three branches of government and the origin of the term, "checks and balances."

HaZeust 4y ago
The idea of "Checks and Balances" was coined by Montesquieu in his "The Spirit of the Laws" treatise, where it is justified as "balanced forces of equal leverage amongst one another having an embedded tension against each other". The problem is, despite the Founding Fathers' near-fetishization of Montesquieu's work, and the fact that Checks and Balances are a genuinely good idea, the Founding Fathers weren't true to it. In a country of three branches (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary), it is absolutely paramount that the installment of each branch's authority is independent from the actions of another. Obviously, this didn't happen: Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive - of whom decides his cabinet (which is also meant to be a Check and Balance to Congress), and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary - but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court. This creates a system where Congress seats its utmost authorities intended to act as its checks and balances, and it doesn't work.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbr0 4y ago
  > Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment) There's a reason the states transmit their electors' votes to Congress, rather than meeting in DC. Furthermore, current case law is that states have virtually unlimited rights, subject only to US constitutional protections, to run their elections as they see fit. > and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary As above, Congress does not choose the President. Ergo, the President nominating and Congress confirming a Supreme Court justice are two independent branches. > but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court. Which may then be overruled by the Supreme Court. All in all, a surprisingly flexible arrangement that maintains superiority of the explicitly authorized and described Supreme Court.
  - HaZeust 4y ago
    > Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment) This stance is nonsense. Bush v Gore, Jackson v Adams, and Hayes v Tilden prove it wrong by vesting in Congress, through prior case law, the power to choose Presidential appointment and nullifying both individual state Electors AND collective certification (depending on which of the three you're pointing at). Congress itself dictates who is President and Supreme Court Justices through a de-facto oligarchy. Further, the 17th amendment mandated a popular election for Senators in 1913, so to say that States run their elections as they see fit is - generous. Plus, need we mention the upcoming conflict of independent state legislature theory? We'll see how that cooks up. Also, people make the mistake of believing that direct-democratic elections for members of Congress means that such a superior-leveraged branch of the government is still technically structured as a republic in political theory. This position is scrutinized when considering that the democratically-elected members of Congress conspire to derive additional power amongst each other by sitting the utmost authorities in the branches of government that are also intended to be chosen, by the people, as a check and balance to the very members of Congress they voted in. It's a very complex edifice, but it sure isn't what it's advertised as.

by IncRnd 4y ago

HaZeust 4y ago

The idea of "Checks and Balances" was coined by Montesquieu in his "The Spirit of the Laws" treatise, where it is justified as "balanced forces of equal leverage amongst one another having an embedded tension against each other". The problem is, despite the Founding Fathers' near-fetishization of Montesquieu's work, and the fact that Checks and Balances are a genuinely good idea, the Founding Fathers weren't true to it. In a country of three branches (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary), it is absolutely paramount that the installment of each branch's authority is independent from the actions of another. Obviously, this didn't happen: Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive - of whom decides his cabinet (which is also meant to be a Check and Balance to Congress), and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary - but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court. This creates a system where Congress seats its utmost authorities intended to act as its checks and balances, and it doesn't work.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ethbr0 4y ago
> Congress itself is THE delegate to assigning the President of the Executive Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment) There's a reason the states transmit their electors' votes to Congress, rather than meeting in DC. Furthermore, current case law is that states have virtually unlimited rights, subject only to US constitutional protections, to run their elections as they see fit. > and Congress (and the President it chooses) not only votes on the Supreme Justices of the Judiciary As above, Congress does not choose the President. Ergo, the President nominating and Congress confirming a Supreme Court justice are two independent branches. > but Congress also has the power to ordain any court inferior to the Supreme Court. Which may then be overruled by the Supreme Court. All in all, a surprisingly flexible arrangement that maintains superiority of the explicitly authorized and described Supreme Court.
- HaZeust 4y ago
  > Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment) This stance is nonsense. Bush v Gore, Jackson v Adams, and Hayes v Tilden prove it wrong by vesting in Congress, through prior case law, the power to choose Presidential appointment and nullifying both individual state Electors AND collective certification (depending on which of the three you're pointing at). Congress itself dictates who is President and Supreme Court Justices through a de-facto oligarchy. Further, the 17th amendment mandated a popular election for Senators in 1913, so to say that States run their elections as they see fit is - generous. Plus, need we mention the upcoming conflict of independent state legislature theory? We'll see how that cooks up. Also, people make the mistake of believing that direct-democratic elections for members of Congress means that such a superior-leveraged branch of the government is still technically structured as a republic in political theory. This position is scrutinized when considering that the democratically-elected members of Congress conspire to derive additional power amongst each other by sitting the utmost authorities in the branches of government that are also intended to be chosen, by the people, as a check and balance to the very members of Congress they voted in. It's a very complex edifice, but it sure isn't what it's advertised as.