49

It is a bug in the process, but it's one that has been present (and un-addressed) for more than a quarter century. When the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, it originally said that an emergency would be terminated if each house of Congress voted to do so. Thus a simple majority of both houses was supposed to be able to revoke the emergency. ...


17

Barack Obama used executive discretion in ways that previous presidents had not. For example, he created a visa program that allowed undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States. He did so without supporting legislation from Congress. Note that this exceeds the normal definition of prosecutorial discretion. Not only did he not deport ...


16

The President has that power because the authority to veto legislation is an enumerated power from the Constitution. The conflict exists now because the Congress has surrendered an excess amount of legislative and pecuniary authority to the Executive Branch. the National Emergency Act gives the President some narrowed powers compared to the previous ...


15

Parliament is supreme. Note, this question is seeking more theoretical answers to the question than "realistic". It is unwise to view the world through a theoretical lens, unless the intention is to improve the lens, rather than understand the world. But as you insist, let us look. It seems that this is "carte blanche" for Parliament to override any ...


14

This argument is the other way round. The UK courts pride themselves on being as apolitical as possible. Because the government has been frustrated in its illegal course of action, they are proposing to pack the court with loyalists in order in revenge. They are proposing to make the court as explicitly political as the US system. An example of a similar ...


8

There's this thing called a Chain of Command. In a military context, the chain of command is the line of authority and responsibility along which orders are passed within a military unit and between different units. In more simple terms, the chain of command is the succession of leaders through which command is exercised and executed. Orders are transmitted ...


8

The closest example I can think of is Singapore's Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP systems. Singapore is a single party democracy that uses a UK-style constituency system. In 2015 the ruling PAP party won 83 contested seats, compared to just 6 for the WP opposition (and none for anyone else). However, WP were awarded an additional 3 non-constituency MPs ...


7

How would you write a law which enforces political positions of judges to be representative? Political orientation isn't something you can objectively measure. Especially because there are much more axis' than just "left" and "right" which can be used to differentiate politicians. And as long as there is no way to do so, choosing the judges must be done by ...


5

Why is the Supreme Court not balanced in terms of their political views? It is. The court is currently split with two reliable conservatives, two conservative-leaning swing votes, and four liberals. That's what you wanted, right? An even split between right wing and left wing? It's worth noting that at one time (1995-2004), all but two justices on the ...


5

The theory seems to be (IMHO) that if the President tried to do something too outrageous, he would not be able to get the support of even 1/3 of the Senate. The Legislative Branch doesn't want its power to be totally usurped. So the broad scope of the NEA doesn't really give him carte blanche, the checks and balances are still there. If most of the party ...


4

I think the answer is no. There are some Venice commission reports on term limits (one on presidential and one on other limits, including legislature), which don't mention anything like you ask about. Most countries don't even limit the re-election of MPs, by the way, although some do. Furthermore, it's not easy to see how one can make such a term-limit ...


4

Per the Constitution, nearly all power resides in Congress. The reason the President has gained so much power is because Congress has given it to them. If Congress so choose, they could pass laws taking it back. You list a few examples: The President has the power, as commander in chief, to order the armed forces, but they don't have the power to pay, ...


4

In theory (according to the Philippine constitution), the Legislative branch should provide a check on the President's spending and the Judicial provides a check on Presidential appointments (having to refer people to the President). Likewise, the Legislative makes the laws, the Executive faithfully executes the laws, and the Judiciary compares the laws to ...


4

You can not force the President to get a mental health examination when they don't want to. But according to the 25th amendment of the constitution, the Vice President and at least half of the other cabinet members or half of Congress can declare the President unfit for duty. In that case the Vice President takes over until the President has recovered. ...


3

Each country has its own mechanisms to enforce judicial independence but there are at least three common themes: You cannot remove judges from office on a whim, nor can you withhold a judge's salary or make their decisions dependent on being reelected/renominated. That is, you cannot bully them into submission by stripping them of their livelihood. In some ...


3

The first great decision of the United States Supreme Court was whether or not the Supreme Court could invalidate a federal law. Obviously such a decision affects the power of the court. In general, when we talk about checks and balances on the courts, we talk about two main limitations: Courts can only interpret laws passed by the legislature. ...


2

A vast majority of the judiciary branch is independent from the legislative and executive branches. An interdependence emerges at the federal level; however, it is not as strong of an interdependence as this question makes it seem. While the president has the duty of appointing federal judges and they must be senate approved, these judges (including the ...


1

Trump's authority to levy tariffs unilaterally is derived from the Trade Expansion Act The legal basis cited in Trump's tariff order is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which under certain circumstances allows the president to impose tariffs based on the recommendation from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce if an article is being imported into ...


1

Yes. According to the congress' Wikipedia page the congress has the following powers (I only quote the ones that seem like checks on the president): Confirming presidential appointees through the Commission on Appointments; To concur and approve amnesty declared by the President of the Philippines; To authorize the President of the Philippines to fix tariff ...


1

Firstly we should take into consideration that having an independent judiciary is a relative idea and is therefore heavily subject to perception. While I'm not making a comment on the effectiveness of any particular approach this is still important. Secondly we should consider who exactly the judiciary is supposed to be independent from, It can't be ...


1

I suspect there is a misunderstanding of what "independent" means. Literally independence means that the branch is not influenced by other branches - this is the spirit of the word used in the question. However, that is not what we typically mean when discussing the independence of a branch of government. What is independence? As noted in the question's ...


1

How can the judiciary branch be independent while still being interdependent of the other two serving as check and balance? In the United States (US), members of the federal judiciary are appointed by the executive and confirmed by one of the legislative chambers (the Senate). But once approved, federal judges can only be removed for cause by coordinated ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible