What would happen if any of the three branches were to greatly exceed its authority under the Constitution?
What would happen if any of the three branches (executive, judicial, or legislative) were to greatly exceed its authority under the Constitution?
Question answered by ArmyChemo
The other two would reign it in as often happens. It is the "three legged stool" theory that I learned from reading Lenin.
The government is like a three legged stool with the three legs being Congress, the POTUS and Supreme Court. In order for the seat (a functioning democracy) to be stable each leg has to be of equal length (equal power). When one of the legs grows to long and starts to destabilize the seat the other two combine efforts to cut the longer one down to size, thereby restoring stability.
Lenin was talking about the Soviet government with the legs being the Politburo, the Army and the KGB...but the premise is the same.
What are the advantages of the canadian government versus the usa government?
The legislative and executive branches etc, and specifically Canadian government advantages. Thank You in Advance!
Question answered by Willster
The Canadian system works on the idea that there really are only two branches: the legislative and executive combination, and the judiciary, which has the ability to review decisions by the combined first branch.
Under the American system, on the other hand, the legislative and executive branches can fight for years and overturn each other's decisions and policies, leading to utter chaos and a very slow-moving system. I'll be damned if I understand how anything can get that under the American system
The Canadian political system, which, of course, is derived from the British parliamentary system, has been compared with a benevolent dictatorship. But it generally works.
What's the difference between Congress and Senate?
And just a question more.
What is Legislative Council? I always hear that word but what exactly is it?
Question answered by sociald
Well in the USA Congress is the combined Senate and the House of Representatives.
In a country with a Parliamentary system Congress = Parliament. Such as the British Parliament House of Lords being the basic equivalent of the Senate and the House of Commons being the equivalent of the House of Representatives.
India has a similar government system as well with a parliamentary legislature similar to GB however a judiciary and executive more like the USA. kinda interesting.
Legislative Council is a term that used to be used for combined legislative body. Well it is used still in a few countries. Most Legislative Councils have been renamed Senates in most of the countries who used them.
How did Jackson change the branches of the government during his presidency?
Did he change the balance of power between branches? (I'm a bit confused for this one because Jackson was never consistent, especially when dealing with states rights/federal rights.)
And how did he expand power of executive branch?
Also, did he even weaken the other branches? It just seemed that he ignored them at points.
Question answered by Sherbear
Well yes, but it didnt really stay that way. He definatley gave a lot more power than he should have had to himself, people called him King Andrew. He vetoed a lot of congress decisions and he ignored the supreme court. presidents today dont really ignore the supreme court's decisions or veto that often. he vetoed more than any of the previous presidents combined. This weakened both the supreme court and the legislative branch. Technically though, the supreme court didnt really support the want of the people, they were federalists still in office from John Adam's presidency and the people didnt like them yet they couldnt remove them from power so maybe Jackson was justified in ignoring some of the supreme court's decisions. He honestly beleived he was doing what the people wanted. He beleived the legislative branch was made up of elite people who did what was best for the wealthy and not enough for the small farmers who were 90 percent of the people.
Should we just combine our two party system to a one party system?
Should we just combine our two party system to a one party system?
Question answered by inacents
I've never understood how some Americans could be passionate about politics without recognizing the obligation to be respectful of dissent. Some of the worst excesses of government occur when one party has unchecked power over the executive and legislative branches. An aggressive and healthy minority party is essential to the system.
I also think it's important for a representative system to break out of the false dichotomy of liberal vs conservative that's promoted by our two-party system. Many people won't vote for a third-party candidate because they know that candidate won't win. Or maybe they find a two-valued orientation easier to understand, and don't want to be able to see more dimensions to anyone's political stance.
What sort of careers might I be good at?
I like the arts, literature and sciences. Any suitable careers? I'm thinking of something enjoyable but also with a decent pay.
Question answered by Freefromdrama
What careers are available to literature majors?
Literature students find careers in teaching, publication, the arts, public relations, politics, administration, fundraising, advertising, broadcasting, and other professions that require critical thinking, interpersonal skills, and exposure to a wide range of subjects. For years, studying literature has been a great way to prepare for law school. In fact, the two most common majors for students accepted to law schools are study of the classics and mathematics.
Literary Concept #3: Authorial Intrusion
How's this for a shocker? The Harvard Alumni Magazine reports that, on average, "literature majors outnumber biology majors for admittance to medical schools in the United States."Moreover, if you're a bookworm who likes burrowing into technology, many industries are seeking employees with terrific writing skills and cultural knowledge. These qualities are valuable not only for editing or manual writing, but also for tasks like new media scripting and website production.
Want to help the world? As English is considered an international language, there is a high demand for those who can teach it abroad. There are several programs that offer opportunities for graduates to teach in countries all over the world, so when combined with a few courses in ESL (English as a second language), your degree can fling open doors to exciting cross-cultural adventures.
How to get the job you want after graduation:
•Narrow your focus- Employers want to know your professional aspirations, because they assume that if you like what you do, you'll do it well. Although many options may be available, you're more likely to get the job if it's what you know is best for you.
•Know thyself- Be able to identify your skills and market them to the interviewer through effective communication, and your resume/cover letter. For instance, if you were required to take a foreign language and you excelled in these studies, now is not the time for understatement. The ability to understand another language is very important in this era of globalization and outsourcing.
•Be fearless and creative- Don't feel intimidated by a lack of specific vocational experience. Remember, most skills can be learned on the job, but critical thinking and good written and verbal skills will always be in demand.
Careers In Political Science
A bachelor's degree in political science can lead to exciting careers in federal, state and local governments; law; business; international organizations; nonprofit associations and organizations; campaign management and polling; journalism; precollegiate education; electoral politics; research and university and college teaching.
Political science majors gain analytical skills, administrative competence and communication abilities that are valued in a wide spectrum of potential career areas.
Examples of Careers for Political Scientists. The following are small sample of careers for political scientists.
Administration, Corporate, Government, Non-Profit, etc.
Archivist, Online Political Data
Budget Examiner or Analyst
Banking Analyst or Executive
CIA Analyst or Agent
City Housing Administrator
Congressional Office/Committee Staffer
Coordinator of Federal or State Aid
Corporate Public Affairs Advisor
Corporate Information Analyst
Corporate Adviser for Govt'l. Relations
Corporation Legislative Issues Manager
Editor, Online Political Journal
Federal Government Analyst
Foreign Service Officer
High School Government Teacher
International Agency Officer
International Research Specialist
Issues Analyst, Corporate Social Policy Div.
Juvenile Justice Specialist
Labor Relations Specialist
Legislative Analyst / Coordinator
Plans and Review Officer, USIA
Public Affairs Research Analyst
Public Opinion Analyst
Urban Policy Planner
Web Content Editor
How does the US constitution protect against the abuse of power by those in authority?
I have to answer this question in 400 words and I do not know what I am gonna write.
Question answered by Erik B
After the Constitution was written the federalists had to agree to pass a Bill of Rights in order to get enough support to get the Constitution ratified. The Federalists were hesitant to pass a Bill of Rights because they were afraid that doing so would give the impression that those were the only rights the citizens were entitled to. To a certain degree that has turned out to be true. So look to the Bill of Rights.
Also research the three-part government. In England their executive branch and congress are combined, but here our legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch are separate to keep each other in check.
How did Hitler and his Nazi Party turn Germany into a totalitarian state?
Were there some specific acts or laws he passed? or... a form of police?
Love to get some details and examples on this,
thanks in advance yahoo community!
Question answered by Inphinity
Well, unlike Mussolini Hitler did not take Germany over in a coup he tried and failed in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Now whilst in prison, Hitler realized that the only way he could gain control of Germany was through the democratic system. He spent the next decade slowly increasing his power base, by creating the SA he gained a physical wing to his party, the SA was capable of assaulting opponents of Hitler epically the German Communist Party. Now Hitler was clever he knew the people were discontented with the government, they saw them as traitors who destroyed the proud German Nation at the treaty of Versailles in 1919 also the Great Depression was going on at the time so people were desperate. Hitler said he would reignite Germany and this appealed to many. Now in the early thirties is when things started to gather speed Hindenburg (president of Germany, general during First World War) under the advice of Papen elected Hitler as Chancellor, basically Papen was aiming to "control" Hitlers popularity for the benefit of Hindenburg. However this was to prove a fatal move from this position of power Hitler began moving for supreme power of Germany. Two events proved critical the Burning of the Reich-stag, which was blamed on a communist furthered Hitlers popularity and his need to have control over the country and the enabling act, this basically combined the executive and legislative powers of the parliament into one or more specifically the Chancellorship and the Presidency into one thus the Fuhrer was born and subsequently the bloodiest conflict known to man.
Hope I answered your question :D
Why is America in crisis? Can we win the challenges that face our nation?
How can we win the war in the Middle East and else where and also solve are financial crises? We have a lot to overcome and win.
Question answered by blue316
Before the Democrats' affirmative action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."
Under Clinton , the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.
Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee."
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton 's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.
When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.
In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.
A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off.
In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.
Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.
Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.
Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.
What were some aspects of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracy?
I'm working on an A.P U.S History essay, and i need to know how the two contrast. Also, any sites?
Question answered by EMW
Both were staunch federalists: nation's rights over state's rights. Jeffersonian democrats would hold the union together at all costs, support strict reading and interpretation of the Constitution. The difference: Jackson was the first to see the Executive Branch as being equal to the Legislative and Judicial Branches. He used the presidential veto more often than all six of the previous presidents combined, and he used it simply because he disagreed with a bill and not necessarily because he thought a bill was unconstitutional. Jefferson represented the upper echelon of society - the southern aristocracy; Jackson represented the "common man." Jackson refused to renew the charter of the 2nd Bank of the United States because he thought it was an instrument of the rich. Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling on the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and ordered that all Native Americans be removed to Indian Territory, west of the Mississippi.