“Enlightened Statesmen Will Not Always Be At The Helm.”

The concept of power is a divisive matter in the American political system, as the actors holding it are sometimes unable to impose it as a result of their limited authority to do so. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches in the national government depend on each-others point of view. Part of the Constitution was designed with the purpose of making it impossible for either of these three to become more powerful than the others. Each of them has the ability to check and balance the way that the other two function. In spite of the fact that this system was created with the intention of preventing power from being shared unequally in the country, it sometimes serves as a tool for political gridlock, considering that the judicial branches can debate in regard to a particular topic for unlimited amounts of time before actually reaching a conclusion regarding the respective issue.

Another of these monumental changes would be the surrender of the control of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Over the twentieth century, this became an increasing reality as the focus shifted from Congress to the president (Cooper 2009, 388). While this development has many different advantages in the American government system, there are disadvantages as well, such as a decrease in stability (Cooper 2009, 379). The role of the president has become more important because of the changes that have led to the modern world (Cooper 2009, 388). This has occurred because of a number of reasons, such as “substantial increases in the responsibilities of the federal government, the stakes of politics, and the ease of communication and travel” (Cooper 2009, 388). Furthermore, in recent years, Congress has not worked hard in certain circumstances to protect their rights but have surrendered to the executive branch (Davidson, Oleszek, and Lee 2010, 498). It is

Lastly, it is impossible for any certain branch to gain too much power because of something called “checks and balances”. With checks and balances, each branch has the power to cancel another out and keep its power balanced. “In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Here, James Madison is stating that first, the issue is to convince the people that they need laws for the country to run properly and smoothly, and second is to explain to the people that the educated elite will not receive too much power. This will be achieved by giving each branch the power to overrule one another. For example, the legislative branch can impeach the president and Supreme Court, the president vetoes laws and nominates the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court declares laws and acts unconstitutional. This way, not one single branch will be the main source of government.

The farmers of our Constitution recognized the need for separate powers as well as checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This in turn helps to "provide for the common defense". Separation of powers prevents one branch from becoming excessively dominant over the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.: In order to accede to the preamble and adhere in its goals, the Constitution ensures this is by clearly stating the

In the article, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory,” Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, two political science instructors from Stanford University, investigate a source of presidential power, which is the president’s capability to act individually and make his own law, that has been unacknowledged yet essential to presidential leadership that it defines how the modern presidency is distinctively modern. The authors’ purpose in the article is to outline a theory of this feature of presidential power by arguing that the president’s powers of unilateral action, which is developed from the ambiguity of the contract, are strengths in American politics since they are not mentioned in the constitution. They also claim that presidents push the ambiguity of the contract to make their powers grow and that Congress and the courts would not be able to stop them (Moe and Howell, 1999, p. 1-3).

One way the U.S. constitution protects us against tyranny is separation of powers. A double security rises to the rights of the people. The government's control each other, but at the same time it will be controlled by itself. The National and State governments limit each other's powers and the powers are divided between them. If all the power is in the same hands then they will have to much and there will be a tyranny. James Madison said, “Liberty requires that the three great departments should be separate and distinct.” He talks about how the branches limit each other and that the powers are divided so one branch doesn't get too much. Separation of powers

Over 200 years ago the United States’ Founding Fathers created a unique system of government that allowed a balance to exist between both the federal government and the separate state governments. Through the three branches of government, specifically the executive and legislative branches, the United States has been able to act as a unified body with several varying individual parts. With the executive branch and the legislative branch each having outlined powers of their own the Founders were able to equally balance the power of the national government and the state governments. Although this system has managed to stay in tact for two centuries and has allowed the United States of America to become a dominate player in international affairs, there has consistently been a battle of power between the president in the executive branch and the two houses of congress in the legislative branch. As the United States continues to evolve and face multiple obstacles, so does the relationship between these two branches.

One of the most important principles incorporated in the U.S. Constitution is separation of powers. The U.S. Constitution divided the central government into three branches and created a system of checks and balances as a way to prevent the concentration of power. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In order to be sure that the main

American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the

With the concept of majority tyranny in mind, the founder’s, including Madison, divided the power of the government into three different branches. The need

going public remains a potent weapon in the president’s arsenal, for advocating his own agenda and blocking initiatives from adversaries in Congress.

Even in matters of national security the president has secured new and immense power by way of the USA PATRIOT act, which, remains unfettered to this day. It would be appropriate to compare the process our leaders undertake to the ancient tale of Icarus. We find that often, our presidents simply fly to close to the sun in their quest for power. This is most apparent in their abilities to harness the power of the media, build a co-operative relationship with congressional law makers, or to implement domestic policy. In these areas, one president or another has enjoyed some level of power and success for a time; that success however, would not be absolute. Often, the power they wield, which they have empower to help them lead, would be threatened by a plethora of oppositional actors and stimuli in the political field, some of the oppositional forces would

The Framers of the US Constitution wanted to prevent the concentration of power into the hands of one individual, or even one group of individuals, within the national government. Thus, they reduced all governmental functions to essentially three:legislative, executive, and judicial. Because they believed that the very root of tyranny was to allow these three essential governmental functions to be exercised by one person or group.1 Consequently, they deliberately set out to devide the three functions into three separate and distinct institutions under the principle of separaton of powers, so as to gform a more perfect Union h.

The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be

In discussing the Madisonian Dilemma, one must first ask, “How do you give government enough authority to preserve social order and communal values, but not so much that it places unfair and inappropriate limits on individual freedom of choice?” (Bond & Smith 2013, p. 111) This delicate balance between governmental rights and individual freedoms has been a source of much contention and debate. James Madison, a primary framer of the Constitution and author of 30 of the Federalist Papers, believed that the only way this balance of power could be achieved was through controlling the effects of factions through a representative government, fragmenting the power of that government and creating a system of checks and balances within, and