Branches of Government

What were the reasons our forefathers divided the government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches?

The reason that our forefathers divided the government into three separate branches was because they planned to implement a democratic government that would work to serve the citizens and not regulate them. In other words, the forefathers wanted to devise an organization where no single individual or assembly would have too much authority. The three branches; judicial, legislative, and executive would have aptitude to administer and control what the other two branches were doing. The system that was put into place to perform these tasks was called "checks and balances". Each branch was intertwined with the other two.

How are the three branches of U.S. Government supposed to interact?

The overall foundation of the three branches is to share authority while and watching over the other two branches. Each branch has separate functions and associations with the other branches. The forefathers planned an organization by means of which each individual branch would observe the other two branches to verify that they are acting in accordance with the fundamental laws and are not trying to over rule the other branches and become an empire by themselves.

The first branch is the Judicial Branch also known as the court system. The Judicial branch is in place to supply the people with true merits and qualities of laws. There are a number of powers that the judicial branch is liable for such as trying and convicting offenders of the law which includes associates of parliament. Another part of the judicial organization is to understand bylaws and how they relate to the latest state of affairs while also determining the validity to the Constitution. With the previous statement in mind, the judicial branch can also upend a ruling or law if it is found to be in disagreement of the U.S. Constitution.

The second branch is the Legislative Branch which is also known as Congress. This branch also consists of the House and the Senate. The House is made up of members from states comparative to the populace of the states while the Senate has two members from each individual state. Combined together, the House and Senate ratify the laws that the third branch, aka executive, is to impose while the judiciary branch has to endorse.

The third and final branch is the Executive. The Executive branch is managed by the President of the U.S. and he administers the daily operations of the government. A majority of the federal government organizations fall under the executive branch. The executive branch is reliable for spending and distributing money. The branch distributes money for welfare, social security, road fixing, meat inspections, drug approval, research, and NASA. These are just a few examples that the executive branch spends money on or for.

The branches interact and are supported by checks and balances. Checks and balances is a way for all three branches to separate their authorities in a way so that no one branch could completely rule the nation. The forefathers thought that this system was needed since individuals are ambitious for power and wanted to avoid having people or assemblies from grabbing control. The motive to implement checks and balances was to prevent the risk of sovereignty. The U.S. Constitution instructs that checks and balances must be present while the odds of a monarch must not. There are numerous schemes in place for this model to work correctly. One example is that if the President was to be impeached for a high crime, he would be put on trial in the Senate and not the Supreme Court. This is done because by using checks and balances it instructs that a breakdown in this system is treason according to the U.S. Constitution. Under this system the Senate has authority to carry out court operations. Even if this power is never used by Senate it is known that the authority of Senate to use it is available.

Is the system successful? Why or why not? Are the branches balanced in power? Why or why not?

The system is unsuccessful because the system that was created by our forefathers is slow, entwined, and burdensome. The system appears to delay procedures that are usually straight forward and should be resolved quickly. The separation of powers was a good idea and worked well at times but due to issues that were alienated it caused more harm than could have ever been thought. The system of checks and balances only seems to work for two of the three governmental branches. Seizing the authority of the ruler is Treason to the Constitution. To this day Congress has not tried to take over the control that it did not have. It is my opinion that large parties are not expected to attempt to be rulers as it is with lesser parties. If an analysis of the current system is performed it can be found that checks and balances only deal with 2 of the 3 branches. Under this system the judicial branch appears to be absent. Conversely, the judicial branch supervises the other branches while nobody supervises them. The position that the judiciary branch has given is that they are self controlling and can keep watch over themselves.

How was the conflict between supporters of a strong federal government and champions