Changes

The phrase “[[checks and balances]]” is one of the most popular terms used in connection with the Constitution.  You’ll hear it on [[television]] and see it in the newspaper.  It refers to the [[separation of powers]] between the three branches of the federal [[government]], and how one branch will act to limit the [[power]] of a competing branch.

The phrase “[[checks and balances]]” is one of the most popular terms used in connection with the Constitution.  You’ll hear it on [[television]] and see it in the newspaper.  It refers to the [[separation of powers]] between the three branches of the federal [[government]], and how one branch will act to limit the [[power]] of a competing branch.

For example, Congress insisted that [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[George W. Bush|Bush]] not invade Iraq unless Congress first authorized it.  This “checked” the [[power]] of the presidency.  It added “balance” to our [[government]] by ensuring that the [[President of the United States of America|president]] could not act alone, but needed agreement by Congress.

For example, Congress insisted that [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[George W. Bush|Bush]] not invade [[Iraq]] unless Congress first authorized it.  This “checked” the [[power]] of the presidency.  It added “balance” to our [[government]] by ensuring that the [[President of the United States of America|president]] could not act alone, but needed agreement by Congress.

Another example is how the Supreme Court invalidates acts of Congress as unconstitutional.  The Court thereby “checks” the [[power]] of Congress.  Congress is “balanced” by the counterweight of the Court.  Query: who “checks and balances” the Supreme Court?  Ponder that question.  

Another example is how the Supreme Court invalidates acts of Congress as unconstitutional.  The Court thereby “checks” the [[power]] of Congress.  Congress is “balanced” by the counterweight of the Court.  Query: who “checks and balances” the Supreme Court?  Ponder that question.  

The “[[separation of powers]]” between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) represents the same idea.  It keeps the three branches apart from each other so that one does not gradually gain control over the other.  Without the separation, one branch could influence and dominate another branch.

The “[[separation of powers]]” between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) represents the same idea.  It keeps the three branches apart from each other so that one does not gradually gain control over the other.  Without the separation, one branch could influence and dominate another branch.

Occasionally, something blurs the distinction between the three branches.  In response to extravagant spending by the federal [[government]], Congress passed a [[law]] giving the [[President of the United States of America|president]] [[power]] to veto expenses on a line-by-line basis.  This is known as the line-item veto.  Many states already give their governor this [[power]].  It enables the chief executive ([[President of the United States of America|president]] or governor) to approve legislation but to pluck out and remove certain expenses in it.  For example, new legislation may authorize money for the war on Iraq but also include building a new dam in Oregon.  The [[power]] of the line-item veto would enable the [[President of the United States of America|president]] to approve the funding of the war but strike out the funding of the new dam.  He would thereby modify the legislation before signing it.  Query: does the line-item veto violate the [[separation of powers]] between the [[President of the United States of America|president]] and Congress?  (The Supreme Court said yes, and invalidated the line-item veto).

Occasionally, something blurs the distinction between the three branches.  In response to extravagant spending by the federal [[government]], Congress passed a [[law]] giving the [[President of the United States of America|president]] [[power]] to veto expenses on a line-by-line basis.  This is known as the line-item veto.  Many states already give their governor this [[power]].  It enables the chief executive ([[President of the United States of America|president]] or governor) to approve legislation but to pluck out and remove certain expenses in it.  For example, new legislation may authorize money for the war on Iraq but also include building a new dam in [[Oregon]].  The [[power]] of the line-item veto would enable the [[President of the United States of America|president]] to approve the funding of the war but strike out the funding of the new dam.  He would thereby modify the legislation before signing it.  Query: does the line-item veto violate the [[separation of powers]] between the [[President of the United States of America|president]] and Congress?  (The Supreme Court said yes, and invalidated the line-item veto).

==='''VII. Issues to Consider (Optional - extra credit)'''===

==='''VII. Issues to Consider (Optional - extra credit)'''===