Question #5eb49
1 Answer
The three Branches of Government were designed intentionally to wield different powers. Thus, the extent will depend on the arena.
Explanation:
The "checks and balances" is NOT about sharing the same powers! It is about the way the separate powers of the three branches (why not 4? or 8?) balance or offset the particular abilities of the other two.
Despite some recent examples of over-extension or abuse the structure still has the ability to make corrections, if held to account. Within their prescribed responsibilities each Branch has more "power" than the other two. Thus, it is exercised more when the subject falls more into their oversight domain than the others.
An example would be the most common item - laws. Neither the President nor the Supreme Court can legally do anything unless the legislature has already PASSED a law about it. ONLY the legislature can rescind or change a law.
The President can VETO any legislation that he does not think is valuable. In that case, ONLY if a super-majority of the Congress think that it is really good can they over-ride a veto.
The Supreme Court (is supposed to) rule only on the constitutionality of existing laws. This "balances" the legislature by revoking (not quite the same as rescinding) a law that is contrary to the fundamental Constitution.
So, each has its part to play, and exercises "more" power than the others as the cycle moves. But the purpose of the cycle and the specific powers is to prevent any one Branch from "taking over" the entire process.
