Balance of power?


Senior Member
Thread starter #22


Senior Member
dbone said:
Yes sir , when you say trash like checks and balances are there to be circumvented , That has got to be one of the most unamerican unpatriotic statements you've ever made and if you consider standing up for what the forefathers founded as over politiczing or liberal devisivness too bad when I see ilk like you and Gee w trambling on the constitution I'm too American not to take a stand :flag:
I was NOT advocating it. I was acknowledging reality. :rolleyes: Then given that REALITY, asking people which lesser evil they'd choose. But you've successfully not answered again. Fine. Got it.
Three legged stool

Have you ever tried sittin' on a three legged stool where one of the legs is much longer than the other two, or worse, all three are different lengths? The only way to make it set right is make sure all three are very close to the same length... I strongly believe the framers most likely intended a level stool.

The answer to the original question of which actually seems to have the most power is "it depends". The Judiciary and Executive each seem to have the ability to ignore the Legislative pretty much at will. The Legislative also seems to keep itself pretty much hog-tied most of the time. Both of those things make the Legislative the shortest leg on the stool... IMHO

The Judicial also does not seem to have much power (or interest) to affect anything the Executive does... That makes them a slightly longer leg on the stool. To me, then, by process of elimination, the Executive seems to be (and likely has always been) the most powerful.

:shoot: :yeah: :smash:

It just ain't right...




Senior Member
WTM45 said:
I think the Judiciary is potentially the most powerful, unfortunately. They can make decisions and not hear the arguments again as long as they live. Does not matter the changes in Congress or in the Presidency, as long as those old judges are breathing they continue to hang around.
I think there should be a limit on how long a judge can serve, not based on physical/mental ability but on a limit of term because they are appointed.
I think there does not need to be term limits on the Legislature, as we the people make the choices, albeit sometimes there is not much of one.

I strongly feel that the Executive Branch should continue to hold the big stick. Veto powers, executive orders and appointment are pretty big tools. A president that does not use the powers that are granted is nothing but a figurehead. That is what Socialists like. Figurehead leadership.
I fully agree, and with some judges now totally disregarding the Constitution and ruling based on international laws much more powerful and dangerous.
It is clearly the Judiciary that has the most power, especially since they siezed Constitutional Review power in Marbury v Madison, which they are not granted in the Constitution. Its' been steadily downhill ever since. They are now the Super Legislature that can strike down any law passed by Congress they don't like.

As long as we're talking about the changing balance of power, I agree the imbalance should favor the Executive Branch.

Under the Constitution, the legislative branch has the most power. They control the purse strings, both spending and taxation, the power to declare war, approval of the President's appointments, and have the authority to limit the judicial branch of government's purview, and change the make up of the court syatem as a whole except for the Supreme Court.

Would that they would exercise some of their authority.