Question about separation of powers

As I understand it, the US prides itself on having the separation of powers as a check on the 3 branches of Govt - executive (running the country), legislative (making the laws), and judicial (enforcing the laws).

My question is at what point does the legislative branch dictating to the executive branch cross the line?

As an outsider it seems to me that this is what the TP Republicans are trying to do with Obama now - effectively take over the exective and make run the country in the manner they say - and that seems like a pretty clear breach of the idea of the separation.

I'm sure there are subtleties I'm missing tho.....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


...and the corporate interests have already established judges that tend to rule in their favor, across the country, so there goes that balance, too.

I know your question was regarding the legislative branch encroaching on presidential authority, but it's more common, especially in recent years for the executive branch to usurp the legislative authority:
Executive Orders
www.libertyforlife.com...

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


I think you make a reasonable point - it's all in the general area of what overlaps exist and should be allowed and how are they "policed".

I'm in a westminster system country - so here the "executive" is the PM & Cabinet, who, of course, are all Members of Parliament and so in the legislative branch as well as the exec - no great problems with this yet......but it means I don't really know how it works in the USA beyond the superficial level that it is suppsed to.

So I'm happy for any and all answers on the more general topic.

Our constitution says that all tax and funding bills must start in the House. Whatever the House passes is then sent to the Senate and is debated, changed, amended, and then voted on. If the Senate makes any changes to the House bill there is a proceedure to reconcile the differences. The reconciled bill is then voted on again and either passed or rejected, if passed it is then sent to the President for signature or veto.

The house has passed legislation on the debt ceiling but the Senate refuses to debate it, make any changes or vote on it.

reply to post by rlrsar


Ah - I didn't realise that taxes are levied through Congress - thanks for that - I guess it pretty much answers my original question.

The concept of the seperation of powers is based on the notion that one cant be the judge, the jury and the executioneer.

The legislature makes the laws and judiciary intreprets the intent of legislature in the applicition of the law to particular case without fear or favour. In Australia penalites are applied by the court based on the merits of the case and in line with similar cases.

The thing to fear are one-penality-fits-all-offences laws and laws wich are unjust and infrigne on civil liberities. Civil liberites are based on human rights which are rights all humans we have because they exist.

Rights are not privilages granted by some 'authority'

One-penality-fits-all-offences laws are designed to circumvent 'common law; where the application of penalites is made on the basis of the merits of the case. They are also designed to enable politiicans to extend their rach into the court and impose their own penalties.

One-penality-fits-all-offences laws effectivly sideline the courts discretional power and create a sitaution in which you could raffle the job of being a job a-judge--for-a-day beccause all the 'judge' has to do is decide guilt or otherwise then impose the pre-decided penalty.