Monday, June 22, 2020

Bedrock of US Democracy: Checks and Balances of Governing Branches

This article is by

Share this article

The US Capitol, Washington | Source: Martin Falbisoner via Wikimedia

When the American Revolution ended in 1783, the United States Government was in a state of flux. The founding fathers (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison) did not want to establish another country that was ruled by a king. The discussions were centered on having a strong and fair national government that protected individual freedoms and rights and did not abuse its power. When the new Constitution was adopted in 1787, the structure of the infant government of the United States called for three separate branches of government, each with their powers and systems of checks and balances. This would ensure that no one branch would become too powerful because the other branches would always be able to check the power of the other two. 

The legislative branch is described in Article 1 of the US constitution. It has 100 US senators (two for each state), and 435 members in the House of Representatives, which is better known as the US Congress. Making laws is the primary function of the US Congress, but it is also responsible for approving federal judges, US Supreme Court justices, passing the national budget and declaration of war.

The executive branch is described in Article 2 of the US Constitution. The leaders of this branch of government are the President and the Vice President. They are responsible for enforcing the laws the Congress sets forth. The President works closely with a group of advisors known as the Cabinet. They assist the President in making important decisions within their areas of expertise, like defense, the treasury and homeland security. The executive branch also appoints government officials, commands the armed forces, and meets with leaders of other nations. 

The third branch of the US government is the judiciary and is detailed in Article 3. This branch comprises all the courts in the land, from the federal district courts to the US Supreme Court. These courts interpret the nation's law and punish the ones who break them. The Supreme Court settles disputes amongst states, hears appeals from states and federal courts and determines if federal regulations are constitutional. 

Separation of powers in the United States is the backbone of the Checks and Balances System which provides each branch of the government with special powers to check the other branches and prevent any branch from becoming too powerful. Congress has the power to make laws; the President has the power to veto them, and the Supreme Court may declare the laws as unconstitutional. If both the houses of the Congress have a ⅔ majority, they can override the President's veto. The idea of checks and balances is that it is not enough to separate the powers and guarantee the independence of three branches but also that each branch needs to have the constitutional means to protect the system in case of overreach by any other branch. 

 The Check and Balances system also provides the branches with special powers to appoint or remove members from other branches. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) can impeach or convict the President of high crimes like bribery or treason. The House of Representatives has the power to bring impeachment charges against the President, and the Senate can convict and remove the President from office. Supreme Court candidates are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Judges can also be removed by impeachment in the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. 

The legislative branch, which consists of the Senate and House of Representatives, passes bills, controls the federal budget, and has the power to borrow money on credit on behalf of the United States. It also has the sole authority to declare war, as well as to raise and regulate the military. It oversees, investigates and makes rules for the government and its officers. The Senate can ratify treaties signed by the President and give advice and consent to presidential appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments and other posts. It also has the sole power of impeachment (House of Representatives) and trials of impeachment (Senate). 

The executive branch consists of the President and the Cabinet. The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, executes the instructions of the Congress, may veto bills passed by Congress (but the veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses), perform the spending authorized by the Congress, declare emergencies and publish regulations and executive orders. They make executive agreements which do not require ratification and sign treaties, which require approval by the ⅔ of the Senate. They also have the power to make a temporary appointment during the recess of the Senate and can grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

The Judiciary determines which laws Congress intended to apply in any given case, exercise judicial review and review the constitutionality of laws, determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes and determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process.

The system of Checks and Balance was designed and implemented by the founding fathers with such diligence that even after more than 225 years, it is still effective in preventing undue outreach by one of the three branches.

 

Note: Sites that have been referred to: 

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_powers_0
  2. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed48.asp
  3. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Congress-of-the-United-States
  4. https://www.britannica.com/topic/House-of-Representatives-United-States-government
  5. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Constitution-of-the-United-States-of-America
  6. https://www.britannica.com/topic/executive-government
  7. https://www.britannica.com/topic/checks-and-balances

 

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

October 23, 2020 3:57 PM

Male gaze, their female guardians and sports-wear

In Helen Cixous’ essay, ‘The Laugh of Medusa’, she urges women to redefine what their body means to them, not just physically but also socially, emotionally and politically. This could happen by re-writing about your body in a way you deem  fit, the expression you identify with and separating it from how your body has been written about by men. The expression could be how you view your body separate from the patriarchal lense.

It is no secret that a woman’s body is subject to critique. While clothing for men is just a tool to cover themselves as per the surrounding environment, clothing for women isa social and political narrative that dictates their life or as we affectionately call it ‘culturally appropriate’.

The clothing style could vary. It could be a woman covered head to toe in a Burqa, it could be a woman who decides to wear sports-wear in a park or it could be jeans and a top. Everything is critically evaluated by men and by women who work towards protecting the male gaze.

The male gaze is a heterosexual way of looking at female bodies that sexualises these bodies into an object. It is a gaze that runs on the self-affirmative notion that the bodies of women, and what they do with it, is directly linked to how they  appear in front of a man.

In a recent incident in Bangalore, India, popular Indian actress Samyuktha Hegde was abused and threatened by senior political leader of the congress party, Kavitha Reddy,  for wearing sports-wear, in Bangalore’s Agara Lake park. She was exercising with her friend.

Kavitha Reddy initially claimed she was in indecent attire and went onto morally police and then later abused the actress and her friend.  A supposedly progressive political leader gets uncomfortable by what women are wearing. It breaks into an argument and a fight where the politician is supported by five to six men. Later on, the police appear to be appeasing the politician instead of the women who were harassed. Although she did apologise, her apology came after her video went viral, and as a protection for her own political reputation.

To look at Samyuktha Hegde’s clothing as a threat is to view her clothing as an act of obscenity therefore bullying her identity and sense of agency and reducing her to sexual object, who, by putting her in public, apparently gives the men present a right to look at her? Nevermind that she was there to workout like everyone else, her actions were confused as to how men look at her. In the video posted by the actress, the politician is surrounded by men who are championing her on. The politician choses to side with the patriarchal figures in shaming these women. Asking to protect from the male gaze is a far stretch but punishing women for the male gaze is where we should draw a line.

What roles does Kavitha Reddy play? She is the guardian of the male gaze. We find her in our mothers, in our grandmothers, in aunties and sometimes our friends. She understands a woman’s body as an object that is there to be looked at by men. She gets angry at women for wearing certain kinds of clothing but she is not angry at men for looking. The agency in this case always belongs to men.

When Cixous asks women to re-define their identity, she urges us to strangle the moral police that comes alive in such instances. It is the moral police that shames women for wearing clothes that don’t flatter their bodies or clothes that do flatter them. She urges us to reflect upon the source of such vigilance. Do we shame other women because we believe in what we are saying or our identity is partially (or  wholly) shaped by the male gaze?

Whether we chose to wear a burqa, or a dress, or variations of the new type clothing produced everyday, the crux of the matter is that it should not worry anyone apart from the one wearing it. The identity of a woman, sexual or otherwise, has to be redefined to be separated from the men and their gaze. We have to draw a line otherwise people in power will continue to abuse their power and preserve patriarchy and male gaze.

Read More