Hello everyone, my mid-term is coming up, very, soon. And the topic is rather simple…however very complex. Basically, I pick a branch of government (I.e. Judicial, Legislative, Executive) and I explain why it has the most influence and or power over the other two branches. The professor warned us that no one can virtually received an A, because of the complexity and simplicity of the mid-term. So I’m nervous! Which branch do you guys think is the most powerful? And why?
Powerful wing of government Hey dude,, interesting report subject! Yea its quite vast.. i assume its a US government question. The simple most powerful area of government is the Military Black operations. over the last 5 years, over 3 Trillion US dollars have been "lost" from the Pentagon buget. Can search news archives for those keywords, it was all over the papers for years. Bill Clinton once, after recieving question relating to secret military operations, stated that there was a government above him that he knew nothing about, and never would. not sure if that fits into the 'executive' wings or whatever... But that is the real power base and ultimate decision making lies.
The Judiciary I'm going to go with the Judiciary. The power of judicial review trumps Congressional prerogative when the law transcends the Constitution. Additionally, the chief justice presides over a president's impeachment. Add to that a lifetime appointment (no need to face re-election). To the other, Congress has the power to devastate the court system by amending the Constitution. But they need the support of 34 state legislatures to do so. A president can sabotage the courts through bench appointments, but needs the support of a majority in the Senate.
The Legislature can also sabotage the Courts either by withdrawing jurisdiction (save in a few limited cases where the Constitution specifies the jurisdiction of teh Supreme Court), bu abolishing all lower federal courts (which is clearly in their power) and by increasing or reducing the number of sitting justices on the Supreme Court itself (they rejected court packing in the 1930s on political grounds, but Confgress clearly has the legal power to set the number of Justices by statute, subject only to the caveat that they cannot fire a sitting Justice (though they could make it a law that each case will be heard by only, say, five of the Justices and they could probably, by statute require that all opinions be unanimous). The Executive has the ultimate check on the Judiciary. If the Judiciary goes nuts, the Executive can fall back on a paraphrase of the Jacksonian maxim 'The Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it!' Without the executive backing them up, the Court has to look to a small force of baliffs (none of which have actual authority to enforce a Court decision outside of the Courtroom) as compared to the Executive's status as Commander in Chief. We routinely obey the Court either out of respect for their position in the government or a belief that their decision will be enforced by the Executive. Any decision that causes us to lose our respect for the Court (as any decision wildly outside the bounds of their natural power would do) leaves us only with the latter, and in that case the Executive might also balk at supporting such a decision. The executive has the theoretical power to abolish the other two branches and still run the country. The only threat to that power is that certain parts *of the Executive itself* might not comply with the orders of the President, but we imagine each of the branches as unitary institutions, each acting with its own, singular, voice, the it's clear to me that of the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches that the Executive has by far the most direct, most varied and most practical set of powers. It's easy to see how th Executive could ignore the will of the other two branches, but not vice versa.
I would think that the Legislative branch would be for they have the power to make laws, enact wars, impeach, raise or lower taxes, budgets and a host of other activities. No other branch can do that.
As of today, it is the Judaical Branch, because the Legislative Branch has abdicated it's authority, and failed to reign in the excess of the Judaical Branch in making law by Judaical Decision.
But the legislature "could" assert power. That they do not is a choice. If a random guy named Sam in Iowa started issuing orders to his local FBI Field Office, and people in that office complied, and the FBI leadership in Washington failed to say "Guys, stop following Sam's suggestions" it would look like Sam had power, when really he only has power until he orders something that shakes the leadership out of its apathetic state. That's not real power. Also, "Judaical" means "of or relating to Jews or Judaism." I assume it's a misprint of "Judicial" and not some attempt to note the large number of Jewish lawyers in the country.
If power is not exercised it does not exist, so as of today, The Judicial Branch hold the most power.
power - judicial executive - influence, especially for foreign policy, anything the president says goes around the globe
That seems to suggest that neither Iran nor North Korea is a nuclear threat, since they have no power that stems from nuclear weapons (as that would be a power that has not been exercised by those states and an unexercised power does not exist). Or that the federal government does not have the power to draft me into the military, simply because they are not exercising that power at the moment. I think that an unexercised political or military power is a power nonetheless. Even if we disagree on that, as we apparently do, the Courts are also limited by the Case or Controversy requirement. They only have the power to intervene in issues that are properly raised before them by litigants. Both Congress and the Executive have the ability to review matters of interest to them whether or not raised by some third party. The Supreme Court routinely hands down *maybe* five decisions a year that receive major public scrutiny are raise some public ire...and that would be an unusually heavy number in a single year, as they only tend to hear 70 or so cases each year. Their budget is tiny. They have had nothing at all to do with the trillion-dollar bailout. They have never levied or imposed a single tax. They do not operate their own prisons or jails (other than very limited holding cell space within courthouses). They have never executed anyone, even when they affirmed a verdict of death. Everything that affects my life regularly comes from either Congress and/or the Executive with the executive having a role both in proposing and passing laws and in enforcing them. Further the Executive has nearly primary authority in dealing with international affairs. Add to that , the Executive is the only branch with the power to seize control of the nation over the objections of the other two and of the people. They are the only branch with the wherewithal to pull off such a coup when they disagree with the other two. It seems to me that the Executive wins hands down.
The corporate branch holds the most power because it appoints the other three branches and the media branch. Of course the people branch potentially has the most power but the media branch appoints the mind of the people branch and the corporate branch appoints the media branch so I still say the corporate branch has the most power. Of the three official branches the executive branch has been the most powerful branch most of the time. There has been times when the legislative branch has been the most powerful. In theory the legislative branch controls how the money is spent and therefore controls the government. In practice the executive branch does not completely obey the legislative branches assignment of money. The conflicts between what the legislative branch wants down with the money and what the executive branch wants done with the money are not great enough to know what would happen if it was really a test of power between the two branches. If the executive branch spent the money in a way different from how congress voted the money and if congress cared then the question would probably wind up before the supreme court but I am not aware of this scenario ever having happened. You would think that the people, media and the corporations would lose control over the president in his second term because the president no longer needs their approval for reelection but the presidents never seem to stop caring what the people, media and corporations think. Bush the 2nd was probably about as courageous as any president has ever been about doing what he though was the right thing to regardless of whether he had support in place for his policies. Too bad that he was a weak relatively uninformed thinker but to some degree it is easier to be courageous when you don't know or care about the other points of view. Bush had enough congressional, judicial, media, people, and corporate support for his policies that we did not see a showdown of power between the Executive and congressional branches or a showdown between the executive and media or people or corporate branches. Some people (respected people not just crackpots like me) have said that the Federal Reserve is the most powerful branch of government. I think they are wrong and think they know that they are wrong but the Federal reserve does have a lot of power and that power has increased quite a bit in this last year as the Fed's role has expanded.
It is irrelevant because they are all in collusion; what you see, effectively, is an oligopoly forming from the three insidious organizations. An oligopoly is a monopoly with more than one member organization
N. Korea and Iran are exercizing power, they are steadily moving down the road to Nuclear Arms, inspite of the efforts of the rest of the world. Not even close, it would require the total support of the Military, National Guard and every Police agency to do such, and the Military, National Guard and Cvilian Police would not support the Executive in such a move. That is why I question THE Obamas civilian defense corp idea. And yes, THE Obama in His own words; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
The Military and National Guard are the Executive Branch too. I'm pretty sure they could take out any police forces that wanted to oppose them. In the meantime, exactly what judo moves does Alito or Justice Stevens know that would help them to defeat the military or the police and assert their judicial dominance? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The question is poorly worded: "influence" and "power" are two different things. I gotta go with the President. The President has the power to directly influence the American people- all he has to do is go on live TV. And when an act of terrorism happens, we all turn to the President for reassurance. Congress and the Supreme Court can override him but that would take time- the President has his finger on the pulse of the nation.
What is the measure we are using for power? Is it national or international? Independence or Influence? How am I measuring power? I am measuring power by the perceived ability of each branch of Government to override or constrain another branch in any way, i.e. by vetoing a Bill, or rejecting a presidential nominee. The voter has control over the whole lot because whilst all 3 branches are 'balanced', the voter affects every single branch of the Government when they tick their ballot papers. The voter decides who’s checking i.e. “checks and balance”
Congress, as far as the potential they hold. A few acts of legislation could change the very nature of our government. For example, an act of legislation authorizing the so-called "global war on terror" essentially gave the executive branch of government the power to declare war on another country, provided it had something to do with "the global war on terror." Another act of Congress was the so-called "Patriot Act." For all that we may bash on President Bush, Bush's actual job was to coordinate and manage the departments, bureaus and agencies of the executive branch; read organizations like the FDA. In doing so, he has to follow the rules that are set for him by the legislature. Even so, he does have an extremely large amount of immediate power at his disposal. While it may take months to get a bill through Congress, the President of the United States can operate on the premise that, "it is far easier to apologize than to ask for permission." The sticking point to me, though, is that he only has as much power as Congress invests in him. Or her, if you want to be more PC. However, the best answer to your question would be, "power to do what?" Professors like it when you speculate philosophically upon what actually defines something like "power." Just make sure that you settle on a titular definition, "for the sake of argument" (ten points off if you use those exact words, since they are sooooo cliche), and then proceed to rabidly defend whatever case you choose to make. I guarantee that you will come out at or near the top of the class, assuming you write worth a darn.
